Real versus pretend public consultation that is. Real versus lip service public consultation. Real public consultation versus set up, hand picked (Sandy/ Lanxess/ MECP), company friendly appointees. Cherry picked citizen appointees are not all co-opted, biased company men and women. They are not all anti-environment, pro development, frothing at the mouth Republicans (sorry U.S.). Maybe a few are but give some credit to world class, multi-national, multi-billion dollar companies for some brains. You appoint a Sebastian from the last CPAC specifically because he has a well deserved reputation for both honesty and a calm demeanour. Yes he has a strong sense of duty and responsibility but he also has a built in adherence to authority and to deferring to professionals in fields that he is not a professional. My understanding is that Sebastian teaches possibly both business classes as well as I believe History. I would call him expert in both and I doubt that he would back up or accept bland assurances from a fellow expert in those fields without very strong evidence being presented. It's a different story however with Hydrogeology, Biology, Hydrology and Chemistry as these are not his areas of expertise. Experts in those fields are bought and paid for by Lanxess Canada and some of them frankly are full of bullshit and rely on their credentials and degrees to bull through utter nonsense. Ministry of Environment (MECP) "experts" are also very careful as to how far they will go disagreeing with either Lanxess or their consultants (GHD), less due to scientific reasons and more due to political reasons. Past sweetheart agreements between the MECP and Uniroyal combined with mutually culpable, embarrassing and even possibly civil liability issues come to mind.
Other citizen appointees may be less noble than Sebastian and accept appointments after being vetted by their employers who rely on MECP good will and or Lanxess/GHD good will for present and future business. Again others have been brought in with zero knowledge of the history of the 1989 Elmira Water Crisis and are easily led down the garden path of alleged corporate responsibility and good will.
Besides a vastly different members makeup there are other changes required in this particular issue of on-site groundwater pumping failures both in the Municipal Aquifer (MU) PW4 & 5 but also with the shallow aquifer pumping system (UACTS). Ramin and Lanxess need to back up their sent down from heaven, Moses like Commandments with actual hard data. Yes my apologies to busy professionals (committee members) in that it would require more background reading and time commitment but to put it bluntly either crap or get off the pot and let those of us with both the expertise and the time to step up and do the work. Ramin should have presented written Tables of past pumping rates for wells PW4 & 5 as well as for the shallow aquifer pumping wells or at least the total for them. In other words a basis for comparison for both the deep (MU) and the shallow aquifers. Once everybody agreed that there has been a significant decrease in on-site pumping then further data provided by Ramin (Lanxess) somehow proving that there has been LESS nearby off-site Municipal Aquifer (MU) pumping would add weight to his bold statements that Target Rates (MU) set by HIS consultants are not significant/important. In other words Ramin, put it in writing and prove your claims as well as allowing real debate by informed citizens on the matter versus rubber stamping by busy professionals who do NOT want to raise a ruckus or red flags.
No comments:
Post a Comment