I am writing to voice my…

I am writing to voice my concerns about the Strada Aggregates application number 025-1082 to take water for aggregate washing at their Melancthon site. I am someone who has spent 50 years with my family toiling to make my rural property a beautiful place to see out our remaining years. We are completely dependent on our private artesian well. Given that we are in the Pine River Valley, we are likely downstream on the same aquifer that the Strada Melancthon pit is on. Most of my friends and neighbours find themselves in similar circumstances.

1. First off, the numbers laid out in the proposal don’t add up:
- maximum rate per minute (litres): 6,000
- maximum number of hours of taking per day: 11
- maximum volume per day (litres): 5,000,000

6000 litres/minute is 360,000 litres/hour. If this is done for 11 hours/day that gives a maximum allowable volume of 3,960.000 litres/day NOT 5,000,000 litres/day!! This is 26% more than what the rate/minute and hours/day specified in the proposal indicates. So are they asking for 5 million litres/day or 3.96 million litres/day?? Over the 10 year duration of the permit, that’s a 3.8 billion litre difference! That’s a big difference! How did this application make it this far with such a glaring discrepancy?? This speaks of incompetence to me.

Our water is a shared resource that we are all dependent on. Given that Strada can’t even do basic math correctly, can we trust them to comply with the terms of the proposal while also being mindful of protecting the quality and quantity of our water? I think not!

2. Water table - I see that this proposal has been designated as Category 3 meaning that the “water takings are anticipated to have the highest potential of causing unacceptable environmental impactor interference”. This begs the question of what studies have been done to show that taking this water (be it 3.96 or 5.0 million litres/day) will not have an adverse effect on the water table. Am I correct in thinking that this proposal would not be approved if a study were to show significant risk to our water table?

Even if studies predict a negligible impact, how much faith can we put in them given that hydrogeology is an imprecise science modelling chaotic systems. Who bears the risk if studies are wrong? Is it the approving body? MNR? Is it our provincial government? Is it Strada? Or is it the landowners downstream of the Strada pit who have nothing to gain and everything to lose? Do we need to resort to legal recourse to protect our water or can we trust that the Ontario government has our back?

3. Water quality - Given that the proposed “water taking has the highest potential of causing unacceptable environmental impactor interference”, why is there no mention in the proposal on-line of how the wash water is treated after it has been contaminated? If ponds are used to allow sediment to settle out, are they sized to provide adequate containment to accommodate the 5 million litres/hour flow rate? (That’s 2 Olympic swimming pools/hour!)

Are these ponds lined to prevent on-site chemicals and petroleum spills, and aggregate silt containing heavy metals, from leaching into the underlying aquifer and contaminating it?

Is there ongoing oversight of safe water practices at the pit? The answer is no. Looking at infraction notices handed out and enforced, statistically it would appear the MNR is not funded to provide adequate enforcement. It would seem that there is not the political will to keep our water safe.

Given that there is a risk of contamination, why are we even considering allowing more water taking which compounds the risk and potentially affects thousands if not millions of people who are reliant on the aquifer and rivers whose headwaters it feeds?