MORE PECULIAR ARGUMENTS FROM THURSDAY EVENING

Recall that in yesterday's post I said that there were some reasonable arguments and some not so reasonable by Lanxess and GHD. I gave Lou the prize for the most inane. Well just to show that he wasn't entirely alone in his wishful thinking here are some more.

Ramin said: To determine ground surface elevations we'll take a pail of water with us and pour it on the ground to see which way it
flows.

If he'd only said that once I would chalk it up to heat of the moment, over enthusiasm. He said it two or three times. Three or four gallons of water will simply spread out perhaps over an area five or six square feet at most and then soak into the ground. Three or four hundred gallons I would expect to indicate some effects of gravity and flow towards a nearby lower lying area. I repeat this area is bare ground not asphalt or concrete permitting instantaneous flow of water downhill.


Lou said: The Stroh Drain doesn't simply drain the Stroh property. It drains several of his neighbour's properties including
properties north of Church Street.

Well the Stroh Drain is on the extreme west side of the Stroh farm right up next to the Lanxess property. The Canagagigue Creek is flowing primarily from west to east below (south) the Stroh and Martin properties. All the Stroh neighbours and farms are to the east and the ground surface flow is generally southwards into the Canagagigue Creek. They are not going to run a pipe to the far west side of the Stroh property in order to drain their property into the "Gig" which is due south of them. As far as the homes north of Church St. any of their surface drainage will be into the Canagagigue Creek where it flows through and beside Bolender Park. Lastly Lou is correct. Stroh are draining one of their neighbour's properties and that would be the only neighbour upgradient of them and who had swampland 20 metres away from their Drain namely Uniroyal/Chemtura/Lanxess.


Lou said: The topography or ground surface elevation contours marked on Conestoga Rovers Drawing Nu. C-02 in their May 2013 report
titled "Scoped Environmental Impact Study Remediation of Former Gravel Pit Areas (GP1 and GP2)" could be inaccurate.
Therefore my interpretation of the flow of Uniroyal waste waters southwards and then eastwards onto the Stroh property could
be inaccurate.

Aside from the fairly breathtaking suggestion by a GHD and formerly Conestoga Rovers (CRA) consultant that CRA are capable of making major errors in their reports there are other considerations. First off the title of this map in question is "EXISTING CONDITIONS" and yes that title is fully capitolized. Secondly under Source Reference the map states "Topography Based On Survey Data as Provided By CRA Ltd., Updated With Latest Survey 2013-04-08." Thirdly the Stroh Drain is located within 20 metres of both Lanxess's property line and within 20 metres of Stroh's extreme west side of their property which is many hundreds of metres wide. The only reason to locate that Drain right there is because that is where the surface water from both properties (Uniroyal & Stroh) is draining to.


I have made notes of at least three other statements including one from Dwight Este suggesting that the very clear line on numerous maps is merely a footpath to or from an old house that used to be located off of Church St. and now is part of the Lanxess property. There were suggestions that the Interceptor Trench was no such thing because it could not gravity flow north to south and would require numerous pumping stations. It was also suggested that there was no motive or rationale for an Interceptor Trench after the Environmental Appeal Board turned down Uniroyal's Stay Appeal and the MOE insisted on excavation and removal of RPE-4 and RPE-5. I responded that an Interceptor Trench would explain the MOE's lack of insistence on an Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System for the east side the same as the one proposed in 1994 and operating by 1997 on the west side of the creek.

As I stated in the post yesterday there were both good arguments made, worthy of consideration, as well as some that frankly in my opinion were ridiculous unless their purpose was simply to provoke me into some sort of verbal, rude response. If that was the case then you have to ask why would they resort to those tactics if they felt that they had the honest answers and I was mistaken. Afterall they are supposed to be the professionals aren't they?