Kersin Engineering and…

Kersin Engineering and Searchmont Ski Resort have failed to address very straight forward, very valid questions and concerns around the risks and impacts of depositing waste water into the Goulais River.

They are quick to assure the public that the system will meet all ministry standards to ensure there is "minimal" risk to the natural environment. However when asked what the risks to the natural environment and human health could be, they are unable to provide any insight or transparency.

They simply stand firm that the system will meet all requirements and state that more information will be analyzed and available if/when the ECA is approved.

Here is an example of a response received from Kresin Engineering when asked for more information on the risk(s) and impacts(s) of the WWTP that they are so adamant this system will "minimize":

"What do you mean by “risks of a WWTP?”, the treated effluent meets the criteria established by the Ministry which is to ensure that the additional flow generated by the plant has minimal impact on water quality. For example, a risk could be that wastewater is known to carry E.coli. However, this plant is equipped with solids removal and UV disinfection, both of which remove and kill E.coli bacteria. However, it should be noted that river water also naturally carries E.coli. The effluent limit for E.coli leaving the WWTP was established in the ACS based on river samples taken as part of the ACS and the Provincial Water Quality Objective. All of the quality characteristics of concern are reviewed as part of the ACS." - Kresin Engineering (Project Leader B.S).

In this response, they mention E. Coli but fail to elaborate on the risks of increased levels of E. Coli on the natural environment and/or human health.

As we can see just from one of many examples, they continuously (and very passively) fail to acknowledge and explain in detail that there is risk and impact to the natural environment and human health and subsequently default to their stance that operations will have "minimal impact". Reverting back to praising the proposed system and/or minimizing the potential impacts by referring to the natural state of the river.

The public deserves to know, in great length, what the potential risk(s) and impact(s) are in order to make educated and informed decisions about this proposed WWTP. Instead it seems the inquiring public is being met with feel good responses that lack critical information - even when pressed for greater understanding. This lack of transparency is gravely concerning.

Here's what we know from a simple Google search:

"If there is too much E. coli in river water, it indicates fecal contamination, increasing the risk of illness from exposure through swimming, wading, or ingesting the water. Health risks include gastrointestinal issues like diarrhea, cramps, and nausea, while certain strains can lead to severe complications such as bloody diarrhea, kidney failure, or even death. Water advisories are often issued, advising the public to avoid contact with the water, especially those with weakened immune systems, infants, children, and the elderly."

While I can appreciate that it's in their best interest to encourage trust in their proposed system; it only creates more distrust when they refuse to admit, disclose and discuss the very real risks.

Collectively the local community find it very deceptive, deceitful and very suspicious that they refuse to discuss this information.

The Public Information Center (PIC) they hosted in July 2025 failed to address any risks, not could any of the resort or engineering representatives address concerns of this kind.

The ACS also was not signed by any specific engineer or environmental professional, only the company name represented the completed ACS.

When Kresin was asked what individual professional(s) completed the assessment and why their name or credentials were not signed or available anywhere on the document, they could not explain.