I'VE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE TAG CHAIR

I posted here last Saturday August 8 about my e-mail earlier that day to TAG (Technical Advisory Group) Chair Tiffany Svensson. She responded with a brief e-mail back on Monday (Aug. 10). Her e-mail was polite, respectful, courteous and I might even suggest appreciative of my efforts to provide information and help to TAG. So far so good. She also suggested in her last paragraph that her e-mail "...is not likely as a robust a response as you would like,...". Well Ms. Svensson certainly hit the nail on the head with that point. My first read of that sentence left me wondering if she was inferring that there would be another more detailed response/explanation still coming. Second and third reads have not left me with that understanding. ............................................................................................................... Therefore the next day (Tues. Aug. 11/20) I sent Tiffany a second e-mail pointing out that my basic, bottom-line request for an explanation of TAG's complete rejection of my written Delegation presented to them last February had not been responded to other than her saying that she recognized that her response was unlikely to be satisfactory. The second e-mail while similar to the first did have a couple of new facts included such as the increased amount of liquid wastes overland surface flow both during high water table season (i.e. rain/spring) as well as during the winter when the ground was frozen and less likely to absorb overflowing surface liquid wastes. I also rather bluntly suggested that if TAG were unprepared to publicly advise the reason/rationale or evidence for their decision not to accept that overflowing liquid wastes ended up in the lower lying area to the immediate east of the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) then clearly they had zero respect or appreciation for citizen stakeholders preparing Delegations for them AND that this whole "public consultation" exercise was a mere facade , a sham. I went so far as to suggest that the sham was both for the financial and credibility benefit of Lanxess and the Ontario Ministry of Environment as well as to simply fool the general public. ................................................................................................................. If there is any technical evidence or reason to doubt gravity flow of liquid wastes to the lowest lying area (sort of bowl shaped) then it is way past time to present it. Unfortunately the history of both the company (& predecessors) and the MOE/MECP is to simply say "trust us, we know best". No, what you know best is what is good for your interests not what is good for the public interest.