Saskatchewan aims to protect water from source to tap with 25-year plan

via: The Canadian Press
Published Monday, Oct. 15, 2012

The Saskatchewan government has outlined a 25-year plan that it says will protect water supplies from the source to the tap.

The 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan has seven goals:

• Sustainable Supplies
• Safe Drinking Water
• Protection of Water Resources
• Safe Dams
• Flood and Drought Damage Reduction
• Adequate Data, Information and Knowledge
• Effective Governance and Engagement

The Vision Statement of the Plan,”Water supporting economic growth, quality of life and environmental well-being” is supported by the following principles:

Long-Term Perspective: Water management decisions will be undertaken within the context of a 25-year time horizon.

Water for Future Generations: A sustainable approach to water use will protect the quality and quantity of water now and for the future.

Integrated Approach to Management: Water decisions will integrate the multiple objectives and information pertaining to the economic development, ecological, hydrological, human health, and social aspects of water, considering circumstances and needs that may be unique to a watershed or region, to achieve a balanced outcome.

Partnerships and Participation: The provincial government will facilitate collaboration in the development and implementation of water management decisions.

Shared Responsibility: All residents, communities and levels of government share responsibility for the wise use and management of water.

Value of Water: Water is essential to life and will be treated as a finite resource that is used efficiently and effectively to best reflect its economic, social, and environmental importance.

Continuous Improvement: Water management will be adaptive and supported by sound monitoring, risk assessment, evaluation, research, innovation, and best practices.

The province says conservation is critical and could be achieved through pricing strategies.

But the plan adds that new reservoirs, pipelines and canals may also be necessary to meet demand.

Water demand is highest in the southern part of the province because of industrial development such as potash mines.

Other goals include ensuring dams meet water supply and management needs safely and making sure measures are in place to respond to floods or drought.

“We want to ensure there is a sustainable water supply available to support our growth, a healthy environment and our quality of life,” Ken Cheveldayoff, minister responsible for the new Water Security Agency, said Monday.

Saskatchewan’s new Water Security Agency will report annually on how the plan is working.

 

EPA declares trichloroethylene (TCE), a “very hazardous mutagenic cancer-causing chemical” after 22 years of study.

Today EPA took an important step towards protecting the public and wildlife from trichloroethylene (TCE), a very hazardous mutagenic cancer-causing chemical that pollutes the nation’s water and air. TCE is also the culprit involved in the Woburn, MA cancer cluster of childhood leukemia cases (and the subject of the movie, “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta). EPA’s press release is here.

This much-delayed action is a triumph of science over special interest politics. The public won today. Here I tell the history of science-manipulation for this chemical, but for the political shenanigans see today’s blog of my colleague Daniel Rosenberg.

TCE is a chlorinated solvent used primarily for metal degreasing—most notably for jet parts—and is a widespread drinking water contaminant that is leaching from military bases and industrial sites throughout the country. In addition to cancer, TCE causes harmful effects to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing fetus. The EPA has been trying to finalize its assessment of TCE for 22 years, making today’s announcement a long-overdue victory for health.

The last EPA assessment of TCE was 24 years ago, in 1987, classifying TCE as a “probable” human carcinogen (Group 2B). In 1989, the EPA started to update its TCE cancer assessment, but didn’t issue a draft for public and peer review for a dozen years, until 2001. The 2001 EPA draft for TCE calculated that the chemical was 5 to 65 times more toxic than previously estimated, and classified it as “highly likely” to cause human cancer. It identified children as a susceptible population, and noted that co-exposure to some other chemicals may augment the toxicity of TCE.

The 2001 draft also triggered a decade-long firestorm of criticism from the chemical industry, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), which together are responsible for about 750 TCE-contaminated dump sites in the nation.

Read the whole article from NRDC

Dianne Saxe of envirolaw says this opens Canada to potential litigation as well:

Yes, TCE is a carcinogen
by DIANNE SAXE on OCTOBER 3, 2011

After 22 years of study, and intense political maneuvering, the US Environmental Protection Agency has formally classified TCE (trichloroethene, also called trichloroethylene) as a carcinogen, as well as a non-cancer hazard to human health. The assessment is now a formal part of the the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, a human health assessment program that evaluates the latest science on chemicals in the environment, and which has drawn considerable fire from industry. The new assessment may make it harder to cleanup TCE contaminated sites to acceptable levels, and may require changes in Canadian air, soil and water standards.

TCE is one of the most common man-made chemicals found in the environment. It is a volatile chemical and a widely used chlorinated solvent, especially from the 1930s to the 1970s. Frequently found at contaminated sites, TCE migrates easily from contaminated ground water and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings. Since 1987, it has been classed as a “probable human carcinogen”, but it now turns out to have been dangerous at levels previously believed to be safe. In 2001, EPA calculated that the chemical was 5 to 65 times more toxic than previously estimated, and classified it as “highly likely” to cause human cancer, especially in children.This assessment has undergone several levels of peer review including, agency review, interagency review, public comment, external peer review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board in January 2011, and a scientific consultation review in 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences.

The new assessment may require regulators across Canada and the US to reassess generic criteria (for air, water and soil), risk assessments for sites contaminated with TCE, and limits on current industrial emissions. For example, until recently, Ontario allowed 50 ug/L of TCE in drinking water. According to the new assessment, that level was likely to cause cancer in about 1 in 10,000 people, possibly more in small children. Co-exposure to other chemicals can make TCE more dangerous to health.

The EPA plans to use the new TCE toxicity values in:

· Establishing cleanup methods at the 761 Superfund sites where TCE has been identified as a contaminant
· Understanding the risk from vapor intrusion as TCE vapors move from contaminated groundwater and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings
· Revising EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for TCE as part of the carcinogenic volatile organic compounds group in drinking water
· Developing appropriate regulatory standards limiting the atmospheric emissions of TCE.

All of these changes will likely affect Canadian standards as well, since we typically follow the US lead.

CTV: ‘Fracking’ fluid pitch stirs Great Lakes pollution fears

Clean water advocates worry that pollutants could stream into the Great Lakes if a proposal to treat chemical wastewater at a New York state sewage plant is approved.

The Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) is reviewing a plan to treat ‘fracking’ water — fluid waste from a gas extraction procedure — at a facility sitting on the Niagara River, which joins up with Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Early drafts of the plan propose trucking the liquid waste to the plant to be treated before returning it to wells for reuse, though some oil and gas companies have discharged the fluid into waterways, according to a Buffalo News report.

Environmentalists fear a spill or the possibility of the treated fluid being released back into a main water supply could threaten drinking water in the area and nearby cities such as Buffalo and Toronto.

“If discharged into waterways, the wastewater flowback puts the drinking water of communities in the region at risk,” Council of Canadians member Emma Sui wrote in an open letter to the NFWB.

The Great Lakes hold 95 per cent of North America’s freshwater and provide drinking water to 40 million people in surrounding communities, according to the social justice group.

NFWB spokesperson Earl Wells wouldn’t confirm details on the agency’s potential contingency plans for the discharging the wastewater, saying the proposal review is still in the early stages.

“One could make the leap that if you’re going to treat it you’re going to discharge it,” he told CTVNews.ca. “But we’re not even at the discussion point about discharging. The alternative could be just recycling the water.”

Recycling the wastewater, said Wells, would mean companies truck the fluid to the treatment plant and then take it back to reuse in the gas extraction process.

Wells added that the entire project will need to be rubber-stamped by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

“All we have said is we’re looking at the potential possibility of treating wastewater from the drilling process,” he said in a phone interview from Niagara Falls, NY.

The chemical cocktail

Fracking fluid is a byproduct of hydro-fracking, a controversial drilling method used to exploit deposits of shale gas. The so-called cleaner fossil fuel is found inside densely-packed rock beds around the globe.

During the procedure, a high-pressure cocktail of water, sand and chemicals is pumped deep underground with the intention of blasting the rock open and freeing the gas within.

Chemicals such as methanol, ethylene glycol and sodium hydroxide are listed as commonly used hydro-fracking substances in a report prepared for the United States’ House of Representatives last April.

Environmentalists also take issue with the hydro-fracking process itself, worried that natural gas and wastewater will contaminate groundwater during extraction.

Like Quebec, New York state currently has a drilling moratorium in place on the state’s shale gas deposits.

Wells said he wouldn’t address environmental concerns, but pointed out that treating fracking fluid in Niagara Falls, N.Y. could be an economic boon to the area. (this comment concerns me the most. What about after the money is spent and the oil is gone? – M)

“It’s a poor city. It continues to see residents leave and revenue leave,” he said. “The cost of maintaining the water and the wastewater continue to put a burden on the ratepayers. It could generate jobs, mitigate rates.”  (It could. Lots of things ::could:: happen. – M)

Old fracking fluid from shale gas operations is typically stored in manmade lagoons with thick liners or reused by oil and gas companies. (It can also potentially contain NORM, or naturally occuring radioactive material which get carried by produced water (fracking fluid) to the surface. The most hazardous elements found in NORM are Radium 226, 228 and Radon 222 and daughter products from these radionuclides. The elements are referred to as “bone seekers” which when inside the body migrate to the bone tissue and concentrate. This exposure can cause bone cancers and other bone abnormalities. -Mickie)

Wells said the NFWB’s treatment plant is underutilized and one of only two facilities in New York State equipped to treat the type of contaminants found in fracking fluid.

But it may be costly and difficult to strip the chemicals from fracking fluid, warns a University of Windsor geology professor.

“Taking those chemicals from the water does not sound like an easy thing to me,” Frank Simpson told CTVNews.ca. “This is an amazing cocktail of substances not found in the natural environment.”

While Simpson said the vast majority of fracking fluid is made up of water, he said the chemicals in fracking fluid shouldn’t be overlooked.

Oil and gas operators in Canada aren’t required to disclose the chemicals used in hydro-fracking, according to an analyst from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Ingredients in fracking fluid differ from operation to operation (proprietary secret? from Environment Canada? What’s wrong with this picture here? – Mickie) but remain a major concern, said Simpson.

“If you took each one of those ingredients and did a web search you’d find links to undesirable human conditions,” said Simpson. “They’re bad for people if ingested in certain amounts.”

If the NFWB does decide to move forward with plans to treat fracking fluid, Simpson advises the group to tread carefully.

“This fluid is made up of artificial substances created by people to solve problems like corrosion and substance build-up,” he said. “It’s not the type of thing you want to come into contact with.”

Dianne Saxe: Fracking, drinking water and regulation

May 2, 2011 via envirolaw

Jessica Ernst has launched a multi million dollar lawsuit against Encana Corporation, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, and the Alberta government for contamination of her property and drinking water due to Encana’s fracking program.

Encana fractures rock to extract coal bed methane, much as fracking is used to extract natural gas from shale. (In March, after a public hearing, Quebec put a moratorium on shale gas exploration pending a full environmental assessment of the potential damage from fracking.) According to the Statement of Claim, many Albertans depend on drinking water from coal bed aquifers, but Ms. Ernst’s water is now so contaminated that it can be lit on fire.

She is also suing Alberta’s oil and gas regulator, alleging that it not only tolerated illegal behaviour by Encana and failed to protect her, but actively attempted to silence her complaints, and that Alberta Environment showed bad faith in “investigating” those complaints.

The lawsuit, together with the Quebec moratorium, signals the likelihood of stronger environmental regulations of fracking in the pursuit of shale gas or coalbed methane.

sludgewatch-l: Canadian govt gearing up to repeat US mistakes

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has a Biosolids Group that is working to ‘harmonize’ sludge ‘biosolids’ policies across Canada.

Now that the EPA in the USA admits they were wrong to promote land application of sewage sludge over other disposal/use options the Canadian government is gearing up to repeat the US mistakes.

The “CCME Biosolids Group” propose to direct all municipal sewage sludges to agricultural lands as ‘Beneficial Use Biosolids’ and to declare as a matter of policy that all agricultural use of sewage sludge is ‘safe’ and protective of human health.

It is extraordinary that intelligent people could propose to declare sludge land application ‘safe’ and ‘protective’ with no reference to standards or limits.

Indeed why set standards for anything? Why not just declare everything from water to elevators to airplanes as ‘safe’ as a matter of policy?

If you want to be subscribed to the CCME sludge biosolids notification list you can sign yourself up here:

CCME listserv
http://www.ccme.ca/contactus/subscribe.html

CD Howe: Threats to Groundwater Supplies in Canada Require Coordinated Response

Threats to Groundwater Supplies in Canada Require Coordinated Response: C.D. Howe Institute

TORONTO, Feb. 10 /CNW/

– Better oversight of Canada’s groundwater resources is required in the face of numerous challenges, according to a study released today by the C.D. Howe Institute.

In ” Protecting Groundwater: The Invisible and Vital Resource, ” James Bruce, recently chair of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Groundwater, assesses present and emerging threats and makes recommendations for better groundwater management in Canada.
———————————-
Challenges for groundwater management, the author says, include energy issues, such as the uncertain impact of shale gas “fracking,” slow recharge rates of aquifers, agricultural intensification, and contamination. Canada has yet to experience large-scale over-exploitation of groundwater resources and its groundwater remains of good quality.

Bruce says the time is right, however, for establishing the legal, regulatory and management systems, along with the necessary monitoring provisions, to overcome the threats to groundwater.

Nearly 10 million Canadians, including about 80 percent of the rural population and many small- to medium-sized municipalities, rely on groundwater for their everyday needs. However, Canadians living in large cities and most policymakers tend to ignore groundwater and its management. This asymmetry of interests has resulted in fragmented knowledge of groundwater locations, their quantity, quality, and how groundwater supplies are changing over time in Canada.

Bruce says an effective groundwater management strategy would adhere to five major principles for sustainability. They are: protection from depletion; protection from contamination; ecosystem viability; allocation to maximize groundwater’s contribution to social and economic well-being; and the application of good governance.

Given the challenges that lie ahead, the author concludes, meaningful cooperation by three levels of government, as well as prices that better match the costs of delivering water and wastewater services, and an expansion in data collection efforts are required to sustainably manage Canada’s groundwater.

For the study go to: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Backgrounder_136.pdf

For further information:
James P. Bruce, Former Chair, Council of
Canadian Academies Expert Panel on
Groundwater;
Colin Busby, Senior Policy Analyst,

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Western Premiers Act on Water Conservation

(Via: M2 Presswire,  June 15, 2010) Western Premiers are taking the first step to a new strategy to conserve and manage Canadas valuable fresh water supplies.

“Decreasing glaciers and snowpack, flood threats, and manageable water supplies do not stop at provincial and territorial borders,” said British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, chair of the 2010 Western Premiers’ Conference. “This work will help us make better decisions and develop comprehensive, long-term water management plans to secure our fresh water supply for future generations.”

Canada currently accounts for approximately seven to nine per cent of the world’s renewable fresh water supply. This supply faces increasing threat due to climate change and water consumption habits of industry, agriculture, citizens, and communities.

· Canada is ranked 29th out of 30 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for per capita water consumption.

· Between 1985 and 2005, B.C. and Alberta glaciers show an 11.3 per cent decrease in area.

Western Premiers also agreed to promote action on water quality and water efficiency to lower water consumption. They supported establishing a national public-awareness campaign through product labelling that helps Canadians choose low-water-use appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines for use in their homes.

Premiers encouraged the federal government to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the United States to implement the WaterSense water-efficiency labelling program in Canada.

The Western Water Stewardship Council, created by Premiers in 2008, will be
tasked with:

1. Identifying existing water and climate science and information activities, including how accessible this information is and how it can support decision making.

2. Identifying agencies and others currently engaged in these activities, and how their priorities can align with policy and decision making needs.

3. Establishing, as appropriate, improved mechanisms to better link these agencies and others, their activities and the policy and decision makers.

The western jurisdictions will also work with the public and private sectors to make the next World Water Day, set for March 22, 2011, a national event to promote water conservation.

Premiers agreed to a Water Charter to underscore the need for immediate action on water priorities. Western Premiers will ask all provinces to join the charter at the upcoming Council of the Federation meeting.

“Water is essential to agriculture, forestry, industry, communities, recreation, health and ecosystems,” said Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie. “Impacts of climate change and our growing population mean that we need a different approach to the use of our water – at home and in our businesses and industries.”

Western Premiers also discussed how severe wet weather this spring has become a major concern for prairie farmers.

Flooding has prevented seeding and is expected to result in the largest abandoned acreage in Western Canada since the early 1970s. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, between
8.25 million and 12.5 million acres of Prairie farmland will go unseeded this year.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0124-000718.htm

Water act excludes Mother Nature [Ontario]

November 5, 2009

Funding blocked after Peterborough discovers most water pollution caused by Canada geese not agriculture

by BRIAN LOCKHART

Peterborough’s goose poop problem has revealed that clean water legislation, intended to keep agricultural and other waste out of waterways, ignores the effects of Mother Nature.

A flock of Canada geese that has taken up residence several hundred metres north of the city’s water intake pipes has created a mess that was initially blamed on agricultural activity several miles upstream.

A Peterborough Public Utilities Commission study in 2006, however, determined that 68 per cent of the E. coli bacteria entering the raw water supply came from goose droppings.

When the city applied for funding under the Ontario drinking water stewardship program to control the pesky birds however, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) turned it down. Apparently it doesn’t meet the criteria of the Clean Water Act.

Threats, as defined in the Clean Water Act 2006, are land use activities which correspond to land uses within the Planning Act or conditions that result from activities, says Heather Malcolmson, MOE manager of source protection planning. Past activity land use is also considered.

“The Act is set out to provide tools,” she says. “The Stewardship Funding Program is enabled within the Act.”

Malcolmson says Peterborough’s problem falls “out of the scope” of the Act. She suggests the city look for funding elsewhere in the province.

The Trent Conservation Source Protection Region supported the city’s application to the Ministry. They requested that one of the Act’s technical rules be revised to include “discharge of avian feces to surface water” as a local threat. They also wanted “congregation of waterfowl upstream of an intake” as a circumstance.

“It’s our mandate to work with source protection and municipalities are among our stake holders.” explains Glenda Rogers, Trent Conservation Project Manager. “You have to make local requests. In this situation the geese are very close to the water intake.”

The ministry denied the request in an October 23, 2009 letter signed by Ian Smith, director of the ministry’s source protection programs branch.

Jack Sisson, curator of the 60-acre Riverview Park and Zoo in Peterborough where the birds have decided to call home, says goose numbers have been increasing over the past 10 years, ranging from 20 to 60, depending on the day.

“We have a company that comes to scare the geese away, but it doesn’t alleviate the problem for good,” he says.

Sisson says Lakefield, about 15 kilometres north of Peterborough, has the same problem.

Jane Lewington, spokesperson for Conservation Ontario, a network of 36 conservation authorities, says she’s not aware of similar problems in other municipalities. BF

BIOREM Gets $1.2M from Ontario

Sept 1, 2009

Through its Innovation Agenda, Ontario is supporting the development of new wastewater treatment technology.

The province is investing almost $1.2 million through the Innovation Demonstration Fund to help BIOREM Technologies Inc. bring its air filtration and purification technology to the global market. The company designs and manufactures systems that remove odours and contaminants from the air. This funding will help BIOREM showcase its new “Unity” technology to customers and investors, including a project at the Preston Wastewater Treatment Plant in Cambridge.

The company also anticipates hiring 27 new employees over the next five years including engineers, and mechanical and design technologists.