Concerns regarding waste…

Concerns regarding waste dumped by The Stool Bus
Proposal initiated by Dwayne A Wilson operating a company The Stool Bus
Instrument type: Environmental compliance Approval (waste)
taxonomy /term/376
ERO: 019-6708
Ministry ref #: 5619-CN5RQZ
Posted by: Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks
Comment Period: March2 – April 16 2023 Open
Site address: 6953 Falconbridge Drive, Melbourne, ON N0L 1T0
Site details: Lot 4, Concession 3
No pun intended, but this proposal reeks to high heaven. A site to dump human sewage waste should not be considered in an area of low elevation that has a high water table. Add to that, two drainage ditches that flow through the property and eventually drain into the Sydenham River. This constitutes a trifecta of high risks for spill damage to the surrounding area. There already is a documented history of tainted ground water in an aquifer a few kilometers south of Melbourne (Oneida Reserve). The cost would be frightening to try rehabilitate the aquifer of our rural community if a toxic spill of human waste occurred on that proposed property. We are all on well water and would likely need to use bottled water for years after such a spill. We moved to this quiet rural area 12 years ago to enjoy our peaceful retirement years, watch the birds return every spring and NOT have to worry that human waste and toxins might flow past and onto our property.

Our 4 acres has drainage ditches along two property lines, but these are not just drainage areas. In fact they are environmentally protected waterways where we often see herons, ducks nesting, muskrats, weasels, and a wide variety of minnows, suckers and other aquatic residents including beavers. When we needed to reinforce the bank (because of flooding), it was not allowed by the MNR since the ditches protected until spring fish migration and spawning had ended in July. When we lived in London, there were little fish painted beside storm drain covers to remind people to respect the water and how pouring a solvent or other harmful fluid down a drain might seem harmless, but it affects or kills many things as it flows down to the Thames river. This type of protection should not be excluded to ditches that drain into the Sydenham so that a waste company can make a better profit.

Due to more frequent heavy rains, we have had several serious floods in the ditches beside our property, overtopping the banks and sending the ditch water flowing onto our lawn. This flood water created “ponds” that took days to draw down. The next time we experience this type of severe flooding, I can guarantee that the low land where the sewage dump is being considered would be one large pond with human waste leaving the property with the flow of flood waters. Within a few hours the sewage would be flowing onto our flooded lawn.
It is clear to me that any spill (which is inevitable) at the proposed site would cause catastrophic damage to the ecosystem, the aquifer, the Sydenham watershed, as well as causing severe suffering to the rural property owners affected. For this reason I am strongly opposed to this proposal, and suggest that instead of documenting vague requirements to ‘prevent’ spills, and ‘mitigate’ spills, there needs to be a substantial financial penalty to the company for a spill of ANY magnitude.
I would suggest a 5 million dollars penalty for any sewage spill, the funds earmarked to attempt to rehabilitate the damage to the ecosystem, the aquifer and the rural property owners’ loss of clean water and safe living environment. The company behind this waste proposal should be required to show that their assets and income stream are sufficient to manage such a fine without going bankrupt. Otherwise we will have another ‘Love Canal’ event in our future, human feces and toxins on our lawn, lawsuits of staggering proportions, with the government taking decades to try clean up the spill, or buying all our contaminated land.