Sludge Watch ==> Smug Story on Ontario Water Gets it All Wrong

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Part Two of the Walkerton Inquiry was to make recommendations to protect 
drinking water sources....all drinking water sources in Ontario.  Instead, 
this government decided that the Source Water Protection Act would cover 
only MUNICIPAL TREATED water sources.

So if you are a rural resident on a private well, the Liberal government has 
just blown off your water quaility.  They quiety DROPPED the part of the 
Inquiry that was to address rural water quality.
Why?  Well now they don't have to deal with the sources of groundwater and 
surface water contamination, except as it applies to treated municipally 
delivered water.

So those whose private rural wells are contaminated by papermill sludge or 
sewage sludge have been betrayed.  The recommendations of the Walkerton 
Inquiry were to address all drinking water sources in the province, not just 
the urban fraction.

It is a shameful blot on this Government's record that they have neglected 
rural residents and failed to bring in legislation to provide the source 
water protection framework that the Walkerton Inquiry promised to deliver.
.......................................................................


Queen's Park

Walkerton is water under the bridge, thankfully

MURRAY CAMPBELL

E-mail Murray Campbell | Read Bio | Latest Columns
What are we to make of the fact that the sixth anniversary of the Walkerton 
tragedy passed relatively unnoticed last week? Have people forgotten those 
unsettling days in which people fell ill and died from drinking tap water? 
Do editors only care about anniversary dates that can be divided by five? Or 
is it that the lessons of Walkerton have become so ingrained that no one 
needs to make a fuss any more?

Happily, it's that last answer that applies. The events at Walkerton in 2000 
-- seven people died and another 2,300 were made ill after drinking water 
contaminated with E. coli bacteria -- were an enormous wake-up call. 
Governments seemed to have responded effectively. A few quibbles about the 
latest piece of legislation are coming down the pipe, but the environmental 
movement is onside. No one, least of all Environment Minister Laurel Broten, 
will say that a Walkerton could never happen again, but there's a broad 
confidence that proper public policy is being put into place.

"I think things are certainly moving in the right direction," said Bruce 
Davidson, vice-chair of Concerned Walkerton Citizens. His optimism is echoed 
by Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. He praises a 
government bill to protect water at its source as "a paradigm shift in the 
management of water in Ontario."

The response to the Walkerton tragedy began with an inquiry by Mr. Justice 
Dennis O'Connor, who was appointed reluctantly by the former Progressive 
Conservative government. The judge concluded that the town's water was 
contaminated by manure spread near a well. He blamed inadequate management 
of the local water system, but suggested that budget cutbacks in the 
Environment Ministry also played a role.

In 2002, he made 121 recommendations so that drinking water from the tap 
would carry a risk so negligible that an informed person would feel safe 
drinking it.

The Conservatives, to their credit, responded by quickly passing legislation 
dealing with water treatment -- including better training and inspection of 
local officials -- and distribution, and supplemented that with regulatory 
standards for the management of farm manure. The initiatives were a dramatic 
shift from their attitudes of just a few years earlier.

Now, the Liberals have followed that up with Bill 43, the Clean Water Act, 
which has passed second reading. The legislation follows 22 of Judge 
O'Connor's recommendations by protecting water at its source before it gets 
to municipal distribution systems. It is based on natural watershed 
boundaries and, with the support of existing conservation authorities, 
places the responsibility for assessments of supplies and threats to those 
supplies with municipalities and local parties. The law would trump all 
zoning provisions that threatened water supplies.

Jessica Ginsburg of the Canadian Environmental Law Association believes Bill 
43 would go a long way to preventing problems with water supplies from 
arising in the first place. She gives it a solid B grade. Mr. Smith said the 
bill "makes a lot of sense to us."

The main reservations about the bill centre on the cost of its 
implementation. The government has already put up $120-million for technical 
studies, but farmers and municipalities worry that they will be stuck with 
extraordinary costs for protecting wellheads or enforcing the law.

Ms. Broten says the full costs won't be known for a couple of years, but 
cautioned that Waterloo Region has found source-water-protection programs 
cost only about 76 cents a month for each household.

Jim Smith, Ontario's newly appointed chief drinking water inspector, 
believes the distribution systems that serve four of every five people in 
the province are providing a safe and high-quality product.

In his first annual report this spring, he said that 99.74 per cent of the 
850,000 microbiological and chemical water tests submitted by municipalities 
in 2004 and 2005 met Ontario's standards. And he believes Bill 43 would 
strengthen the safety net. "It gives us a source-to-tap framework to assure 
the public that everything that can be done to safeguard the water is in 
place," he said.

This is one of those rare cases where government corrects the errors and 
omissions of the past and does it well. We should be grateful.

mcampbell at globeandmail.com
Sludgewatch Admin:





Queen's Park

Walkerton is water under the bridge, thankfully

MURRAY CAMPBELL

E-mail Murray Campbell | Read Bio | Latest Columns
What are we to make of the fact that the sixth anniversary of the Walkerton 
tragedy passed relatively unnoticed last week? Have people forgotten those 
unsettling days in which people fell ill and died from drinking tap water? 
Do editors only care about anniversary dates that can be divided by five? Or 
is it that the lessons of Walkerton have become so ingrained that no one 
needs to make a fuss any more?

Happily, it's that last answer that applies. The events at Walkerton in 2000 
-- seven people died and another 2,300 were made ill after drinking water 
contaminated with E. coli bacteria -- were an enormous wake-up call. 
Governments seemed to have responded effectively. A few quibbles about the 
latest piece of legislation are coming down the pipe, but the environmental 
movement is onside. No one, least of all Environment Minister Laurel Broten, 
will say that a Walkerton could never happen again, but there's a broad 
confidence that proper public policy is being put into place.

"I think things are certainly moving in the right direction," said Bruce 
Davidson, vice-chair of Concerned Walkerton Citizens. His optimism is echoed 
by Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. He praises a 
government bill to protect water at its source as "a paradigm shift in the 
management of water in Ontario."

The response to the Walkerton tragedy began with an inquiry by Mr. Justice 
Dennis O'Connor, who was appointed reluctantly by the former Progressive 
Conservative government. The judge concluded that the town's water was 
contaminated by manure spread near a well. He blamed inadequate management 
of the local water system, but suggested that budget cutbacks in the 
Environment Ministry also played a role.

In 2002, he made 121 recommendations so that drinking water from the tap 
would carry a risk so negligible that an informed person would feel safe 
drinking it.

The Conservatives, to their credit, responded by quickly passing legislation 
dealing with water treatment -- including better training and inspection of 
local officials -- and distribution, and supplemented that with regulatory 
standards for the management of farm manure. The initiatives were a dramatic 
shift from their attitudes of just a few years earlier.

Now, the Liberals have followed that up with Bill 43, the Clean Water Act, 
which has passed second reading. The legislation follows 22 of Judge 
O'Connor's recommendations by protecting water at its source before it gets 
to municipal distribution systems. It is based on natural watershed 
boundaries and, with the support of existing conservation authorities, 
places the responsibility for assessments of supplies and threats to those 
supplies with municipalities and local parties. The law would trump all 
zoning provisions that threatened water supplies.

Jessica Ginsburg of the Canadian Environmental Law Association believes Bill 
43 would go a long way to preventing problems with water supplies from 
arising in the first place. She gives it a solid B grade. Mr. Smith said the 
bill "makes a lot of sense to us."

The main reservations about the bill centre on the cost of its 
implementation. The government has already put up $120-million for technical 
studies, but farmers and municipalities worry that they will be stuck with 
extraordinary costs for protecting wellheads or enforcing the law.

Ms. Broten says the full costs won't be known for a couple of years, but 
cautioned that Waterloo Region has found source-water-protection programs 
cost only about 76 cents a month for each household.

Jim Smith, Ontario's newly appointed chief drinking water inspector, 
believes the distribution systems that serve four of every five people in 
the province are providing a safe and high-quality product.

In his first annual report this spring, he said that 99.74 per cent of the 
850,000 microbiological and chemical water tests submitted by municipalities 
in 2004 and 2005 met Ontario's standards. And he believes Bill 43 would 
strengthen the safety net. "It gives us a source-to-tap framework to assure 
the public that everything that can be done to safeguard the water is in 
place," he said.

This is one of those rare cases where government corrects the errors and 
omissions of the past and does it well. We should be grateful.

mcampbell at globeandmail.com