IS THERE NO LIMIT TO THE LOCAL CORRUPTION?

Well of course there is. It's even possible if not likely that most of our local Woolwich Councillors would be shocked by some form of blatant display of corruption. I'm thinking of the brown paper bag filled with cash, style of corruption. Funny how people can be a little bit corrupted by politics and power but still be outraged when accused of being "corrupt". I've said it before that corruption above and beyond the obvious and blatant is also defined as "riddled with errors". For example a professional report can be corrupt simply because it is blatantly bad, incompetent or inaccurate. The author does not need to have had his palm greased directly from say a local polluter for his work to be corrupt.

Back in November 2012 CPAC and SWAT members were shocked by an exchange that took place between Conestoga Rovers (Steve Quigley) and Susan Bryant at a Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting. It seems that local environmental activist Susan Bryant of APTE had been collaborating with CRA (Conestoga Rovers) on a project referred to as E:Dat or electronic data access tool. The timing while not exact appeared to have occurred while Susan was a voting CPAC member. From late 2010 to late 2015 she was not.

Some CPAC and SWAT members heard this directly the first time (Nov. 29/12) it was said and others believe they heard it at the followup Tutorial put on by CRA at their Waterloo offices. CPAC members and other members of the public were invited. I attended both meetings. There were a number of different CRA employees present at the Tutorial in Waterloo than at the public CPAC meeting. Regardless the almost bragging by Susan as to her close involvement with CRA on this project made absolutely no sense if Susan at the time was a voting CPAC member whose interests were entirely those of Woolwich citizens.

Similarly Pat Mclean's longtime membership on the National Advisory Panel of the Chemical Industry Association of Canada (CIAC) was totally inappropriate while she was the Chair of CPAC and allegedly solely representing the publics' interests as Chair. She had no business accepting travel, meal and accomodation expenses from the Chemical Industry (CIAC) of which Chemtura was a member while she was on CPAC, much less Chair.

Woolwich Township were advised of all this two years ago. They covered it up. Now recently Woolwich Council have received a Staff Report advising them of new Ontario legislation (Bill 68) dealing with municipal procedures, codes of conduct, conflicts of interest and an Integrity Commissioner. I again went back to them just over three weeks ago advising that new stringent conflicts of interest rules absolutely disqualified Pat and Susan from being on the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) which is supposed to represent the interests of Woolwich citizens, not the interests of the chemical industry, Chemtura or their consultants.

To date Woolwich have not given me any reason to expect an honest and appropriate response from them. In over two years they have not interviewed the CPAC and SWAT members who were present at those two meetings. They also have not availed themselves of the written statements that are available from them. It's as if their best hope is plausible deniability. Here's a radical thought Woolwich Council. How about doing the right thing? Gently and respectfully remove that pair from TAG as I suggested over three weeks ago. You don't have to vilify or condemn them. You do however have to show more respect to the Woolwich public by having citizens without chemical industry ties or behind the scenes relationships with Chemtura's allies, representing them on this committee of Council.

2016 ANNUAL (Drinking Water) REPORTS FOR MARYHILL (WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP)

There are two separate water supply systems in Maryhill. The one consists of two wells MH1 & MH2 and is called the Maryhill Water Supply System. The other consists of wells MH3 & MH4A. It is called the Maryhill Village Heights Water Supply System. Interestingly their water treatment systems are different.

The older system namely the Maryhill Water Supply System has the raw water chlorinated in order to kill bacteria such as E.Coli and Total Coliforms. That said their raw water for 2016 was clear of both. Then the water is injected with ammonium sulphate which produces a more stable disinfectant throughout the distribution system. This nowadays is the norm and it also reduces the production of Trihalomethanes (THMs) from the interaction of the chlorine in the water with any organics. THMs are a health issue and unfortunately although there is a line in the Annual Report indicating that the annual average is to be shown, it is not. So far I have not been able to find where the Region might be hiding this number.

Of greater concern may be the lack of THM reporting in the Village Heights Water System. This is because ammonium sulphate is not used and hence there is a greater propensity for the formation of THMs.

The Maryhill System while likely fine THM-wise does however suffer from a symptom of ammonium sulpahte useage. That is the formation of chloramines which are the more stable disinfectant previously mentioned. Chloramines are also a health issue and the guideline states that 3.0 mg/l (ppm.) should be the maximum. The Maryhill System had half a dozen readings that exceeded half the standard but the other concern is the two that exceeded the 3.0 mg/l standard. The Region have conveniently not given a clear indication as to exactly how much the standard was exceeded by. They have simply recorded > 3.0 mg/l ie. greater than 3.0mg/l which is not acceptable or very informative.

Similar to the other 2016 Annual Reports the Region of Waterloo have dropped two or three pesticides from their reporting (& sampling?) with no explanation given. They have added one namely MCPA. Especially as these are rural systems I think a rationale should be given on these reports for additions or subtractions of parameters used.

Glyphosate (Roundup) similar to all the other reports is also listed as <25 ug/l or less than 25 parts per billion (ppb.). This Method detection Limit is outrageously high.

Both water systems have low Turbidity and non-existent bacteria detections for 2016. That is good news. Nevertheless these Reports are unclear regarding health issues surrounding by-products of disinfection and in regards to certain organic pesticides that may or may not be present. That lack of clarity is not acceptable.

RMOW 2016 WEST MONTROSE ANNUAL (Drinking Water) REPORT

Good news and bad news here. Some of the bad news is common with most other Region of Waterloo jurisdictions and municipalities. This includes Glyphosate at a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 25 parts per billion (ppb.). That is outrageous and most likely an attempt to hide significant detections of Glyphosate in some locales by increasing the MDL until Glyphosate registers as non-detect. Then either in expectation that because it has become ubiquitous in our groundwater it will rise in most of the other groundwater wells or in order to hide which citizens are already blessed with this herbicide (Roundup) in their drinking water, all the MDLs throughout the region are elevated.

There are another eight chemicals some solvents, some pesticides at MDLs at 1 ppb. or higher. That also is unacceptable. Sometimes it isn't the high reading of one toxic chemical but multiple low readings that can do damage to human beings.

The really obvious problem with West Montrose water is and has been forever the bacteria in the raw water. 2016 isn't too bad in comparison to other years although I would describe the raw water as still totally unacceptable. The Region appears to agree as they have a brand new water supply coming in scheduled for the end of 2018. Whether they will luck out and there will be no major breakdown in the on-site treatment causing major illness or worse is anybody's guess. E.Coli and Total Coliforms are still present in the raw water and that is hardly surprising considering the river wells draw water from both the unprotected Grand River as well as the groundwater impacted by the septic systems in the village.

2016 saw only one Adverse Result although that was a loss of Combined Chlorine in the system. The treated water was resampled, disinfection was restored and watermains were flushed. This is the problem when you have an already known problem source. Each and every breakdown could have terrible consequences. The prior two years were pretty good in regards to Adverse Results although as recently as 2013 they had an even dozen Adverse Results during the year. These included excessive Chloramine, a health issue, as well as deficient Contact Time (CT) between the raw water and the disinfecting (bacteria killing) chlorine. Overall the West Montrose water treatment system has been plagued with Adverse Results for many years often requiring disinfection to be restored and watermains flushed. This bodes poorly.

Bizzarely the Turbidity in the West Montrose water system has been on the rise over the last several years. From 2012 at 4.98 NTU until last year (2016) it was at 12.2 NTU or Nephlemetric Turbidity Units. Generally raw water should be at 1 NTU or lower in order for disinfection to be totally effective. Bacteria can "hide" from chlorine compounds if there is sediment or particulates in the raw water. There are filters in the system to reduce raw water Turbidity and as long as human error, proper maintenance and equipment failures are slim to nil, disaster can be avoided. A lot of ifs here.

West Montroses water has been shameful for decades. If young children, seniors or people with comprimised immune systems are exposed to E.Coli in particular, then another Walkerton is in the works. To date I think that the Region have been playing Russian Roulette with this water system. Guess what happens if you play Russian Roulette long enough?

WOOLWICH COUNCIL ARE MASTERS OF BOTH DELAY & HEAD IN SAND GAMBITS

So why alienate Woolwich Council? Well firstly speaking truth to authority, whether serious authority or simply piss ant authority, will not alienate you from any honest authority. If on the other hand you speak truth to a group of individuals who are either biased or have reason to feel threatened by those speaking the truth, then indeed you will alienate them.

Over two years ago I spoke truth to Woolwich Council regarding conflicts of interest on a committee of council. I was ignored by most Council members and threatened by our mayor. Very sad but there it is. Back on March 7, 2017 Council were presented with a Staff Report dealing with Bill 68. Bill 68 is in the works with the province of Ontario and deals with municipal procedures, codes of conduct and conflicts of interest. I view it as a desperate voter pleasing attempt by our current embattled Liberal government. That said it already appears to have prompted Councillor Mark Bauman to come clean with a conflict of interest he has with Ray Kuntz who's involved with the Jigs Hollow Gravel Pit.

Hence again I have raised the issue of conflicts of interest of two committee of Council members. Once again our Council appear to be delaying and avoiding the issue. I therefore have decided to expand my complaints regarding this matter with other authorities. This is unfortunate and would not have been necessary if Council had fulfilled their duties and mandates. They have not. I am hopeful that these other authorities will shortly communicate with Woolwich Township and ask them what their problem is in understanding such a straightforward and blatant case. To date Council haven't even contacted myself or several other witnesses for even preliminary discussions. There is also other evidence available which has been made available to them. With the one committee member we haven't even received so much as an initial response, explanation or excuses since the beginning in mid March 2015. Yes that is correct - mid March 2015.

DNAPL & THE WILLIAM ST. WELLFIELD

Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a chlorinated solvent. It has been in the subsurface relatively near the Willian St. Wellfield in Waterloo probably for 70 years or so. This is one of the properties of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLS) in that they very slowly dissolve into groundwater over a period of decades or even centuries depending on the volume of this free phase liquid in the subsurface. Sunar, Canbar and possibly even the old Seagram's Distillery would have used TCE as a metal degreaser back in the day. Too late we learned that once released into the subsurface it was going to end up dissolved in nearby groundwater wells and continue to be
detected for many decades.

The William St. Wellfield still has other problems with its' water and they have shown up in the latest 2016 Annual (drinking water) Report. The raw water has low detections of Total Coliform and the water is very turbid (murky with suspended particles etc.). Sodium levels are off the charts compared to most other wells in Waterloo region. At 223 mg/l this water is not good for those with heart problems. Levels above 20 mg/l are reported to both the Health Department and the Ministry of Environment every five years.

Glyphosate similar to other wells in Waterloo Region is listed as <25 parts per billion (ppb.). Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. Less than 25 ppb. (<25 ug/l) is a ridiculously high Method detection Limit for any manmade chemical and despite the current very high Ontario Drinking Water Standard it should not be in our drinking water at anywhere near that concentration.

TCE concentrations are below the current Ontario Drinking Water Standard of 5 ppb.. Nevertheless they are constantly present in the drinking water between 1.3 and 1.6 ppb.. They have been constantly present for decades and have done most citizens we are told no harm. When the drinking water standard for TCE was much higher 25 years ago I wonder if the concentrations allowed in the water were also much higher. One of the inexpensive methods of reducing TCE concentrations is through simple dilution. In other words combine more contaminated wells with others less contaminated into a reservoir and then measure the TCE levels.

Cambridge installed a multi million dollar Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) in 2013 to further reduce their TCE concentrations in the Middleton Wellfield. Middleton historically had higher concentrations of TCE than what the William St. wells have been at. I assume that for a similar expenditure TCE levels could be lowered in the William St. Wellfield.

Lastly the William St. Wellfield has high levels of Chloramines. Chloramines are produced as a by-product of the disinfection process (ie. bacteria removal). Anything above 3 mg/l is unacceptable and this wellfield has chloramine results as high as 2.48 mg/l. Again while not good in its' own right it is also the possible synergistic effects with TCE, Glyphosate, Sodium and potentially other very low level solvents below the detection limit although still present in the water.

This drinking water may be legal but it is not acceptable to informed consumers. The reality is that we today are paying for the sins of the industrial barons who made themselves rich while dumping their waste products into our common earth, air and groundwater. We are paying both with our wallets and with our health.

FURTHER CAMBRIDGE DRINKING WELLS

Cambridge drinking wells continue to drop at an alarming pace. After looking through the 2016 Annual (drinking water) Reports it appears as if a few more are either fully or partly down for the count. This includes P6 which has been down since 2011 as well as the Hespeler wells. H3 was shut down for all of last year, and H4 was also down for all of last year. That said H4 has been supposedly sharing duties with the addition in recent years of well H4A. I would expect that H4 is contaminated and H4A has a liner through the contaminated depths and picks up its groundwater from a cleaner depth. Well H5 was shut down for 14 weeks last year without reason given similar to the other wells. Also its' organic parameter testing has not been updated since 2014. This may be legal but it's not right.

Well G9 has had long term low level Trichloroethylene (TCE) in it from probably two nearby industrial sources. The TCE is at 2 ppb. which is similar to the criteria for the Minnesota Department of Health. Oh wait a minute. That's the concentration of TCE from the last time it was tested in 2014. How neat is that that a well which routinely detects toxic TCE in it is not tested even on an annual basis? At least P6 was being tested for TCE several times a year before they shut it down in 2011 allegedly without finding any TCE. Well G9 was offline for eleven weeks last year. Once again no explanation is given. Such a confidence builder that is Region of Waterloo.

Preston well P15 was offline for 23 weeks last year. I guess Cambridge just has so much excess water available they can afford to shut multiple wells and pumps down for long periods of time. Again no explanation given. Preston well P9 had a very unusual event occur and it rated an Adverse Incident Report. Apparently Total Coliforms had 1 detection in the treated water. This is unusual in that while Total Coliforms are not unusual in raw water, to find even a detection of 1 in treated water is. The Corrective Action consisted of resampling the treated water and presumably the sample came up at zero.

Then we have Glyphosate tested at a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 25 parts per billion (ppb.). This is a totally bizarre MDL. Most of the other organic parameters are tested between .1 and .5 ppb. with a couple around 1 and 1.3 ppb. and one at 1.5 ppb.. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. A number of sources have been sounding the alarm for this herbicide over the last several years. Allegations include that it can be toxic to aquatic organisms and that it may be a trigger for autism in humans. It is also used in GMO foods as well as has become ubiquitous on farms, residential lawns and in our drinking water.

This 25 ppb. MDL is throughout Cambridge's drinking wells and most likely all of Waterloo Region. To date I have not checked every single Annual Report for 2016. What I can tell you is this. Ten years ago plus the MDL for Glyphosate in Waterloo Region wells was in the 2 parts per billion (ppb) ie. <2 ug/l range. Then it rose to <10 ppb. or <10 ug/l. Approximately in 2009 the Region of Waterloo raised the Method detection Limit to <25 ug/l or less than 25 parts per billion (ppb.). This < symbol stands for "less than" and basically means that the Region can claim that Glyphosate is non-detect albeit at a MDL of <25 ppb..

So Glyphosate is non-detect at a MDL of <25 ppb. What reasonable explanation for constantly raising the Method Detection Limit over time is there but that the concentrations of Glyphosate keep rising in our groundwater? While the Ontario Drinking Water Standard (ODWS) for Glyphosate currently is at an extremely high 280 ppb. I expect that the science will catch up with it. If the health concerns both for wildlife and humans are even half correct than just like TCE you will eventually see this Ontario Drinking Water Standard drop dramatically. Of course our governments believe that toxic exposure doesn't really count as long as it's below the ODWS. Furthermore and even more remarkably while they have absolutely no idea what TCE and Glyphosate together in drinking water can do to humans, rest assured no regional bureaucrats or politicians will be held liable for damages to your health.

LEVERAGING VOLUNTEER WORK FOR PERSONAL GAIN

On the face of it that doesn't have to be a problem or issue. If you are a recent grad say of a hydrogeology course and you want to get some experience with hydroG reports and with a local groundwater issue then by all means volunteer your time to a past CPAC or TAG. That is a win-win. You get to add volunteer experience to your resume that is relevant to your hoped for upcoming field of work. The environmental committee dealing with groundwater issues gets the benefit of your training and insights into groundwater issues and problems.

Lets say however that you are working with a public advisory committee dealing with local soil, ground and surface water contamination courtesy of a very recalcitrant polluter. A polluter with immense power and money and a bad attitude into the bargain. This attitude may be all about playing the game. Spend big bucks on consultants and lawyers and even on public relations firms. This firm as part of their PR program will join their industry association and even go through the process of receiving certification as a *Responsible Care company.

The chemical industry as a whole have been responsible for a number of horrible explosions, fires, chemical disasters and human suffering worldwide. To a certain extent it is the nature of the business. To a certain extent it's not. They have certainly learned how to market and package their attempts to appear to be good corporate citizens and indeed some of their members probably are. But not all. In an industry of this size and power "captured" regulators are a fact of life. Certainly the Ontario Ministry of Environment give every indication of having been "captured" by large corporate polluters in this province. The M.O.E. would far rather negotiate and cut deals than end up in court fighting adversaries with much greater legal budgets than they have. Little guys no problem.

Is working directly or indirectly for the M.O.E. an indication that a person is corrupt? Depends on what you are doing. If you are working at arms length inspecting shallow wells getting paid by an intermediary body such as the Region of Waterloo perhaps not. If on the other hand you were doing your professional work such as editing reports for the polluter's client driven consultants then yes. If you were sitting on an Advisory Panel for the Canadian chemical industry of which the local polluter is a member and you are receiving personal benefits from this work then yes it is wrong. If you are totally and completely unqualified to advise the chemical industry on anything but you were recommended to this Advisory Panel by your local polluter then yes it is wrong.

If both of you were offered all expense paid plane travel to another country to unnecessarily show you a landfill then it is most likely nothing more than a bribe. If you are receiving any kind of benefit whatsoever from a "captured" regulator such as the M.O.E, or from the polluter or his consultants then something is very wrong. By accepting any of these perks you have put yourself in a conflict of interest position. When you sit on a CPAC or TAG whose interests are you really looking out for? Are you prepared to jeopardize both present and future benefits by either speaking or acting in a manner contrary to those who have been giving you either employment, free travel, prestige, access and status and any other perks directly or indirectly? That is why it is called a conflict of interest and it is rife here in Woolwich Township.

Access is part of the local bribe. Do us this solid on this issue and we will offer you lifetime access to us. We will sit down forever more with you and acknowledge your right to talk to and discuss your environmental concerns with us. This access has been denied to CPAC precisely because we would not go along with the polluter and his captured regulator's agenda. The ACC or APTE-Chemtura Committee was the promised land access for a couple of citizens who under the new Woolwich Council lost their CPAC seats after the 2010 municipal election.