STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our guests from the press and other observers. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to explore the testing and monitoring of groundwater in Nova Scotia. We have with us, from the Department of Environment and Labour, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Deputy Minister; also Kate Moir, Manager; David Briggins; and David Wigmore. They will all be available for questions. Mr. McNamara will give the initial presentation. Before we start, I believe we should introduce our members to you.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we get started, I just want to say that we are really looking forward to Mr. McNamara's presentation from your department today. Given the situation in Walkerton just a year ago, the story sort of broke, and more recently in North Battleford, it is bringing it closer to home. We are all very concerned with groundwater in Nova Scotia, and the water we are drinking. Having said that, I would like to turn the meeting over to you, sir.
MR. KEVIN MCNAMARA: We want to thank you for inviting us here today for a discussion on the topic of drinking water in Nova Scotia. We are pleased to be able to speak to this committee about a valuable resource that is important to all Nova Scotians. It is a particular pleasure to be making this presentation during National Drinking Water Week, when discussions of this nature are taking place across the country.
Under Section 104 of the Environment Act, the Department of Environment and Labour has been designated as the lead agency of government to ensure that the province's water resources, including drinking water, are managed appropriately. That is why I am here to give this presentation to you. Drinking water management is complex. The science does not lend itself to simple solutions, and in this presentation I hope to communicate some of these complexities to you. Factors which complicate drinking water management include raw water quality, treatment processes, improvements in science and subsequent changes to standards.
This is the outline I will be using for the presentation. I will first give an overview on drinking water in this province, then I will briefly describe the management approaches and regulatory framework we have in place for ensuring safe drinking-water supplies in Nova Scotia. This includes the various roles and responsibilities of the supply owner and the Department of Environment and Labour. In Nova Scotia a water-supply owner includes municipalities, owners of public supplies which serve more than 25 people and individual homeowners using well water. I will then explain how this management approach applies to public versus private water supplies, because they are handled quite differently. Finally, I will present some of the challenges and opportunities that lie before us as we move forward on a path of continuous improvement.
In Nova Scotia, approximately 60 per cent of the population relies on municipal water supplies, this includes both surface water and groundwater sources. Surface water is the water found in rivers, lakes and springs. Groundwater is water found below the surface of the ground and made available in wells. The remaining 40 per cent of the population relies is on private water supplies, primarily individual wells. Overall, half the population uses surface water and half uses groundwater, a 50/50 split. The national average, by the way, is 75 per cent surface water and 25 per cent groundwater.
This is a map that shows where municipal water supplies are located. These provide drinking water to 60 per cent of the Nova Scotia population. The larger shaded areas are surface watersheds, the small circles are groundwater wells. Along with other public supplies, such as schools, hospitals, senior citizens' housing and tourists' facilities, these supplies have been the primary target of the department's programs because of the number of people at risk in the event of failure. Since the Walkerton tragedy last year in Ontario that killed seven people and made thousands more sick, there has been increased attention to the safety of drinking water across Canada. The more recent events in North Battleford, Saskatchewan emphasis the need for vigilance, though the situation in Nova Scotia is generally different from the ones faced by these communities.
Last year, a Canada public opinion poll on water issues identified drinking water safety as the number one concern about water for more than 4 in 10 Canadians, or 43 per cent; comparatively 49 per cent polled in Atlantic Canada said drinking water was their top concern, just behind Ontario at 50 per cent. A national drinking water report card released
earlier this year by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund gave Nova Scotia a B rating. This was the highest rating achieved by any of the smaller provinces, and placed Nova Scotia in the top four, exceeded only by Alberta, Quebec and post-Walkerton, Ontario, all with a B. It is of interest to note that these are the four provinces that have, in regulations, the Canada water standards.
A recent report on Nova Scotia's water resources by GPI Atlantic, a non-profit research group, found that the province's drinking water quality is improving, based on their analysis of scientific data. This month, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed to work together on water science and water management. This and the next graph show two standards of drinking water quality and the trend towards improvement that is incurring. This graph, updated from our 1998 state of the environment report, shows the improvements over time and the number of municipal water samples testing negative at meeting the Canadian drinking water quality guidelines for coliform bacteria. Over the past 10 years, the number of samples tested negative for coliform bacteria has been consistently above 95 per cent. About 10,000 samples would have been collected in 1999 for example. So when we are talking about percentages, many of the water sources would have been tested many times. If you found it once, and found it safe fives time in a row, that would be part of the failure rate that we are talking about here.
Note that these are total coliform, not E. coli bacteria. E. coli bacteria positives are much rarer. The most common, effective and inexpensive form of disinfection used to kill bacteria is chlorine. While chlorination addresses these contaminants there are negative consequences to its use, including impact on fish and human health. THMs have recently been identified at municipal water supplies. They are a by-product caused when chlorine reacts with organic material in raw water supply. Trihalomethanes, or THMs as they are known, are known to be carcinogenic as a result of long-term exposure.
This graph shows that THM levels are now on the decline in this province. An audit by the department in September 1999 revealed the number of supplies with elevated THM levels had not decreased significantly since the early 1990's. Consequently, a provincial-municipal technical committee was formed through the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities to address long-term solutions. Since then, the number of supplies with elevated THMs has dropped from 18 in 1999 to 13 in 2000 and to 9 this year. It is expected this number will continue to drop as more communities upgrade and improve their water treatments plants.
New technologies developed in Nova Scotia have shown considerable success in treating THMs. The Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour has emphasized continuous improvement in the management of water supplies, and has been making progress over the last number of years. Nova Scotia follows a multiple-barrier approach, which applies to all levels of water supplies, whether it be municipal, public or individual. It basically involves a series of checks and balances in place from the watershed to the tap. A
watershed is an area of land that drains to such lakes as Pockwock; a wellhead is the area of land surrounding a well from which groundwater is drawn.
It means that there are protective measures or barriers in place at different points along the system to minimize the risk of contamination. The barriers in place are: water supply source protection, proper treatment and system operation, monitoring and testing. This approach is nationally accepted as best management practice and is based on risk management. It also defines the roles and responsibilities for all involved. The water supply owner, whether municipal, public or individual, is responsible for the safety of the water supply. The department's role is to set standards to audit and enforce approvals and regulations, not just for water supplies but to control potential contaminants that may enter the water supply.
The rest of this presentation explains how this approach is applied to safe drinking- water supplies protection for Nova Scotians. The first barrier is perhaps the most important and certainly the most complex to achieve, this is source protection. It is an exercise in planning and land management. It is designed to minimize the risk of contamination of a water supply posed by a highway, homes, dry cleaners or dry-cleaning establishments, oil storage, agricultural practices, and so on. The only alternative to planning and land management is land purchase, and this is generally cost-prohibitive for most municipalities. Nevertheless, the absolute control that ownership provides is usually a component of plans as a means to protect extremely high-risk locations like wellheads or surface water intakes.
The Environment Act and Municipal Government Act explicitly provide for source protection for municipal supplies. They are not, however, mandatory, and implementation depends on the initiative of the supply owner or the municipality. Under the Environment Act, a municipality may request the designation of their water supply watershed or wellfield. A formal process involving public consultation, problem identification and regulation development takes place.
Designation as a protected water area imposes more stringent regulatory restrictions on activities within that area, for example, pesticide application, manure spreading and road construction; hence, the requirement for public consultation. The Department of Environment and Labour approves the designation and appropriate regulation for source protection under the Environment Act. Municipalities police and enforce the regulations. To date, 30 per cent of supplies have been designated as protected water areas or are protected through other municipal planning measures.
Statements of provincial interest under the Municipal Government Act allow provincial concerns to be addressed at the municipal level. The statement of provincial interest in municipal drinking water supplies requires that water supply areas are recognized in any municipal planning strategy and bylaw, and provisions made to plan accordingly. The Department of Environment and Labour provides advice to Service Nova Scotia and
Municipal Relations when they approve proposed plan provisions. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is in the process of completing a best practice guide for planning in municipal drinking-water supplies.
The second barrier is the treatment and operation of the water supply. Treatment facilities are designed and constructed to ensure the particular characteristics of the source water are managed to meet the national standards. The Department of Environment and Labour approves the design and the operations. The operation of the plant is critical in ensuring that it achieves design objectives on a daily basis; the training of operators is therefore of great importance. The department requires operator certification as part of the approval to operate a facility. The level of certification is determined by the complexity of the plant, in accordance with the North American Standard Operator Certification Program.
Nova Scotia currently faces a shortage of certified operators because of the number of plants that have been improved and the higher level of certifications required to operate them. The Department of Environment and Labour has recognized this problem and will have a program in place this fall to address it. Operator training is available locally from the private sector, through the Atlantic Canada Water and Waste Water Association.
Municipal water supplies have always been monitored according to the procedures and requirements set out in the guidelines of the Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Until the mid-1990's, monitoring was conducted by the Department of Health. By spring 1999, consistent with the responsibilities of the municipalities, owners and operators, the municipalities are monitoring their own supplies. In 1999, well before Walkerton, as part of the continuous improvement, the scope and content of the drinking water regulations were revised and updated, and this resulted in amendments to the Water and Wastewater Facility Regulations in August 2000, which were effective on October 1, 2000.
These amendments resulted in new monitoring and testing controls over public water supplies which serve more than 25 people per day. For example, trailer parks, rural schools and hospital wells. The expansion of the regulation to cover these sites increased the number of boil advisories in this province; this was expected. The revised regulations require regular monitoring by the owner, immediately reporting of failures to the Department of Environment and Labour by laboratories and the owner, and corrective action to be initiated. The national standards are now incorporated in the regulation. As I mentioned, we are one of four provinces in the country that has this in our regulations.
Source protection. For 40 per cent of Nova Scotians who depend on individual well water supplies, the same multiple-barrier approach applies. The department regularly controls and, in this case, focuses on source protection. Since 1965, all wells constructed in Nova Scotia have been developed according to regulations designed to prevent the well and groundwater, in general, being contaminated. They specify proper construction practices and material, and all well contractors and pump installers are licensed.
The regulations also require minimum separation distance from source of contamination. The most common example includes separation from the on-site septic systems used to service the same properties. The regulations have been updated regularly and they are considered among the best in the country by the National Well Drillers Organization. The Well Construction Advisory Board addresses infringements of the regulation. In addition, the Department of Environment and Labour protects groundwater supplies by placing terms and conditions on activities which may impact them; these conditions include separation distance from facilities such as landfills or oil storage tanks. Thirty-two hundred wells were constructed in 1999; this number varies with urban growth. Well records are stored on a computer database, and there are estimated to be over 100,000 wells in Nova Scotia. Records of over 60,000 of these wells have been recorded in our computerized database. The remaining well records will be captured electronically as part of our database improvements.
It is the property owner's responsibility to provide safe, potable water. The department does not regulate in this area; the resources required for the department to do this monitoring at 100,000 plus sites are not available. The department has provided public education and information since the 1970's and will continue to do so on a regular basis.
Last fall we initiated the Clean Water Watch Program and held a Clean Water Week. We provide information on how to manage your well and when and how to take water quality samples; also, how to manage activities on the property to protect your well. This includes proper management of septic systems, siting of all storage tanks and so on. For your information, the cost of testing an individual water supply is modest: $15 for a bacterial analysis, which we recommend be done every six months; and $100 for full chemical analysis, which we recommend be done every one or two years. If we think about it, this is a small sum compared to the price of bottled water or cable TV and, I guess, more importantly, the potential impact on your body.
Again, the department's role is to enforce compliance with regulations. In cases where a well has become contaminated and the source of contamination is off-site, the department investigates and works to identify the source. There are many sources of potential contamination. They range from malfunctioning on-site systems to domestic animals to farm manure or sledge hammering. Before the department can take enforcement action, we have to be able to prove cause and effect and this is not straightforward. I guess an analogy would be if you try to think how water gets to a well, it is like trying to find a leak in your roof. It is a bit difficult to find the source sometimes.
The number one problem causing bacterial contamination is malfunctioning on-site systems on the same property. The second leading problem is improper well construction. The risk of contamination can be reduced by proper management of the septic system. We recommend it be pumped out regularly, a minimum of once every three years. The Department of Environment and Labour is now working on the issue of manure and sludge
management, with support from Agriculture and Fisheries, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and the Department of Health. This is being done as part of an overall nutrient management review, which includes leachate and inorganic fertilizer sources.
Complex local geological conditions often further complicate assessment. Where the source is identified, the department can require cleanup. A new water supply may also be constructed at the cost to the polluter. Where no source can be identified, the well owner still has the option to convert the problem at their cost. A complete solution may be a new well with more casing or if at a greater depth, can be constructed to current standards. The problem can also be managed using commonly available treatment systems for domestic use to address chemical and bacteriological problems. Boiling water is cheap if the problem is bacteria and we know it does work.
Central sewer and water systems may provide the long-term solution if a number of properties are involved. Such changes in basic services are the decision of the municipality and the communities concerned and have major financial implications. The cost of commercial treatments range from $100 to $1,200 for a nuisance concern, plus or minus $3,000 for more complex chemical adjustments and disinfections, and up to $800 for disinfections. I will show you next the contamination map. This map shows the location in the province where the department is aware of clusters of coliform-contaminated wells. These areas have several things in common. Many of them have poorly-constructed wells. There are also on-site failures. They are older communities. They are multiple potential and identified and unidentified sources. There is limited financial capacity on the part of the homeowners to resolve the problem. There are complex and sensitive geological conditions.
Solutions are likely to be different in each case and there is likely to be cost either to the individual or to the municipality. Projects to solve these problems could be eligible for infrastructure funding if they are brought forward by the municipality. The complexity of the sewage management problem is the reason for recent release of our sewage discussion paper, which highlights many of these issues. The department is successfully following a process of continuous improvement. This is demonstrated by progress in several areas. Regulatory changes, the public water supply monitoring and on-site regulation, increased public education, modernization of treatment facilities and audit of sewage treatment facilities.
There are still a number of areas where we plan to make improvements to drinking- water management in the short and long term. The immediate next steps include: ongoing implementation of our regulations; continue to audit municipal facilities and public supplies; our nutrient management strategy, including manure, sludge, fertilizer and leachate and on-site with our sister departments; the Bras d'Or initiative to work with the communities on sewage-management and drinking-water education. In the longer term, using the water strategy as our guide, we will look at municipal water supply protection, a continuous review of our regulations and, for example, we know there is a need to control water haulers and that will be one of the issues we will be dealing with next.
There are opportunities which help the province in making progress - 60 per cent of the federal/provincial infrastructure agreement is dedicated to sewer and water projects and will allow much-needed progress in these areas. Reducing pollution and increasing protection will correct a number of the problems identified with drinking-water supplies. The Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour is currently working with Environment Canada to determine whether the strategic portion of the same fund might provide an opportunity to address the on-site sewage upgrades.
The Throne Speech committed an additional $758,000 funding to water management in the area of enforcement and the water strategy. This will allow us to make immediate progress in several program areas including: water-supply protection, data management, facilities management and individual well management. The Department of Environment and Labour views the protection of the environment as the basis for protecting our health. The Department of Environment and Labour is committed to water management and to public health protection through a process of continuous improvement, multiple barrier risk approaches and clear roles and responsibilities for the owner and the regulator. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. McNamara. Mr. McNamara has brought with him experts. Although they didn't make a formal presentation, they will answer questions that relate to their field and as we mentioned earlier, Kate Moir is the Manager of the Ecosystem and Risk Management Branch, so she is available; David Briggins is a hydrogeologist with the department; and David Wigmore is a systems manager. So there is a great deal of expertise with us today and we should all take advantage of that opportunity to question them.
We will start our questions with Mr. Brooke Taylor.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Just outside the Halifax International Airport there is a shale pit remediation project that is being undertaken. The small HRM communities of Antrim and Lake Egmont are extremely concerned about the potential for their groundwater, their domestic drinking supply, to be polluted or contaminated. Originally, the project manager and the proponent transported C&D material to the site which was approved, so to speak - or given the green light, pardon me - given the somewhat tacit approval of the community only to find out after a couple of months that organics and compost and garbage of all sorts had been trucked into the same facility. As a consequence, it appears that a black substance I would compare to the waste oil from a diesel engine after running about 8,000 to 10,000 kilometres appears to be emanating from the site.
I am wondering, I realize that HRM - I did talk to Mr. Jim Bauld at HRM, waste manager, and he indicated that the municipality didn't have any responsibility relative to that operation, that project. I know that the Department of Environment and Labour did issue some permits to the proponent. During the presentation, and I can appreciate that some of
this stuff is ever evolving as far as waste management goes, but when we are talking about regulatory changes, I would like to zero in specifically on that project. I am just wondering, are the permits that have been issued to the proponent, Halifax C&D, are they still valid and open?
MR. DAVID WIGMORE: Yes, they are. The Halifax C&D project was to control acidic run-off from the site. There is a high incidence of sulphur-bearing material on-site, or iron pyrite. The remediation matrix, which is the C&D material that you are referring to has been demonstrated in other locations to mitigate and neutralize that acidic runoff. They do have an approval from us. The point that you bring up with respect to the dark ooze is under investigation by our Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned because my constituents are very concerned about that black ooze and the fact that the permits are still valid. I guess you have just confirmed that. I guess I am wondering what confidence and what comfort level can we take back to the folks in those small rural communities that, in fact, they don't have to be concerned about their groundwater.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. WIGMORE: The terms and conditions that were established for the site - and they have to be followed by, in this case, - Halifax C&D - do require routine groundwater monitoring and we can make those results available to the community. As our investigation concludes, we will also be able to report back to the community and we can report back either through this committee or through your office.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, that is a concern, and Mr. McNamara indicated that there is some monitoring going on. As I understand it, the monitoring is done on the honour system at intervals of - I am not sure what the time frame is, but what active participation does the department play in the monitoring process?
MR. WIGMORE: We typically review the monitoring results that are provided by the proponent, Halifax C&D. It is important to note that the runoff you are referring to currently is contained on-site, it is not leaving the site.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, through you, what would it take if, in fact, that black ooze - I think that black ooze was brought to the department's attention almost a week ago now, are you telling me this morning that, in fact, it hasn't been analyzed as of yet?
MR. WIGMORE: I am just saying that I can't tell you exactly if it has been analyzed or if the results are back yet.
MR. TAYLOR: Those watercourses are, in fact, the headwaters for several watercourses including Porters Lake, and I would trust that if there is some pollution running into the watercourses in that area that the department would immediately cancel those permits.
MR. WIGMORE: We will definitely move on controlling any discharges from the site.
MR. TAYLOR: I wonder if you could tell us how it is that the proponent was able to establish that project under the auspices of construction debris being stockpiled to remediate the old shale pit, and then subsequently bringing in tractor-trailer load after tractor- trailer load of compost without the community's knowledge, without anybody at the Halifax International Airport being aware. I am just wondering, is the department going to look at putting in some checks and balances so the community has some input? Obviously HRM was not responsible, they had no area of obligation.
MR. WIGMORE: The remediation matrix that Halifax C&D put on site was intended to stop the acid drainage from the site. As part of the overall plan, they were required to provide a cap to that material in areas where they have already contoured the areas, so the compost that you are referring to would probably have been to help establish that vegetative cap as a growth layer for grasses.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I will pass for now and I may want to come back to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was wondering if Mr. Wigmore would agree to an undertaking of providing the results of the analysis to this committee, perhaps to ease Mr. Taylor's mind on this for his constituents.
MR. WIGMORE: I certainly will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. MacKinnon, you are next on our list.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just follow a little bit more on that particular issue. The Minister of Environment and Labour indicated in the House last week that he was aware of the fact that the proponent for this Halifax C&D recycling at Antrim, off the Old Guysborough Road, was not in compliance with the regulations. Can you tell me how long the department has been aware that the proponent has not been in compliance with the regulations?
MR. WIGMORE: I can't speak to that specifically because the matter is under investigation by our enforcement staff.
MR. MACKINNON: When did you or anyone in your department become aware of the fact that an investigation was required?
MR. WIGMORE: As part of the normal routine monitoring for a number of facilities that we have approvals for in the province. Once a problem is encountered, on any particular site and this site in particular, our staff move into the enforcement mode as opposed to the inspection mode.
MR. MACKINNON: So you can't tell members of the committee when the Department of Environment and Labour first became aware that the proponent was in violation of the Act?
MR. WIGMORE: I would prefer to get back to the committee as to the exact date.
MR. MACKINNON: Would you give an undertaking to provide that?
MR. WIGMORE: I certainly will.
MR. MACKINNON: At the earliest possible time?
MR. WIGMORE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: The residents in that particular area, I understand, are looking for the Department of Environment and Labour to have their water tested at the department's expense. Is the department prepared to do that?
MR. WIGMORE: We will consider doing that, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: What do you mean, consider? Has there been any discussion with the residents on this issue?
MR. WIGMORE: I am not aware of any discussion that has taken place to date. However, I will check with our regional manager in our central office.
MR. MACKINNON: I bring that to your attention because obviously, you know of the sweetheart deal that was consummated for the Meadowview landfill in Kings County which is in the municipality where the Minister of Environment and Labour lives. The provincial government accepted the financial responsibility for the soil and water testing for the residents. Is that not correct?
MR. WIGMORE: We did a preliminary round of bacteria sampling. There was additional sampling conducted in the community at the community's expense.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, the minister gave some indication during estimates and in the House that the provincial government expended some $75,000 to cover those costs. Is that not correct?
MR. MCNAMARA: Mr. MacKinnnon, maybe I can correct you. We are dealing with two different issues here. The one that you are referring to is where we had a lawsuit against the department and in review of all the information, it was felt by the lawyers who advise the department to provide some compensation which covered the expenses the community had taken in hiring experts to do testing themselves. That was what the money was for.
MR. MACKINNON: So the bottom line is the provincial government paid for that testing.
MR. MCNAMARA: That is correct in that instance, but it was also done because there was the viewpoint of the legal advisers to the department that the department may not have been totally diligent in everything they had done in the initial actions.
MR. MACKINNON: Is this the first time that the department has paid for the water and soil testing?
MR. MCNAMARA: I am sorry, for which?
MR. MACKINNON: Is this the first time the department has ever paid for such actions? It seems to me like it is setting a very dangerous precedent here where the province is now accepting responsibility for what obviously is a municipal responsibility. Is that not correct?
MR. MCNAMARA: No, it has been taken a bit out of context.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that because it is in the minister's riding?
MR. MCNAMARA: Definitely not. The minister was not advised of the decision until he came to the department as minister. The decision was made just prior to him taking over the portfolio before at least anyone in the department would have known that Mr. Morse was going to be named minister.
MR. MACKINNON: Would we be talking days or weeks, months or years before that decision was made?
MR. MCNAMARA: It would have been in the days to weeks.
MR. MACKINNON: Days to weeks, that is quite a coincidence now, isn't it? You indicated that property owners have the responsibility to provide safe, potable water, but
obviously the residents out at Antrim off the Old Guysborough Road are being treated one way whereas the residents in Kings County are being treated totally different. That is certainly the optics if not the reality. Do we have any idea of the totality of our water supply in Nova Scotia, freshwater supply?
MR. MCNAMARA: I am not sure I understand the question.
MR. MACKINNON: We are talking about 60 per cent of our municipal water, of our total water supply is municipal, 40 per cent comes from wells and from different private sources. Do we have any idea how much water as a natural resource we have in Nova Scotia?
MR. MCNAMARA: Is it gallons or . . .
MR. MACKINNON: To me, that would be the very basis for everything that you are doing. If you don't know the totality of what you are dealing with, then everything else seems rather artificial, doesn't it?
MR. WIGMORE: If you take a look at your surface water supplies, they are directly affected by any precipitation event, whether it be in the form of rain or snow. That subsequently percolates through the ground to recharge groundwater reserves. There has been no estimate of the groundwater reserve in the province that I am aware of.
MR. MACKINNON: So, you don't know. I understand in recent times there had to be some pumping of water from the Annapolis River to be able to supply the farmers there. Is that correct?
MR. WIGMORE: That is correct.
MR. MACKINNON: So that, in effect, is violating the Environment Act, is it not?
MR. WIGMORE: No, they would have been operating under withdrawal approval from the department to utilize water from those surface water sources for irrigation purposes.
MR. MACKINNON: Is there any indication what type of an impact that is having on the Annapolis River, in terms of all the other factors?
MR. WIGMORE: I am not aware of any study to that effect.
MR. MACKINNON: So, the permit was issued but you don't know what the impact is going to be?
MR. WIGMORE: No, the water allocation takes into account a number of other users that would be on the system, plus the requirement for fish habitat, to determine if there was sufficient water in order to be able to withdraw it.
MR. MCNAMARA: Can I ask Ms. Moir to add more information to that. She would have some more expertise on this area?
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MS. KATE MOIR: The Annapolis River is monitored and the flows there have been documented for the last 30 years. I am not aware of any change in those flows that would be beyond a normal seasonal or periodic variation. There are several research studies actually underway now in the Annapolis Valley to further assess the potential impacts of agricultural withdrawal and whether or not it could be sustainable in the long run.
MR. MACKINNON: Supplementary to that, is it not a fact that the groundwater level is actually declining in Nova Scotia? For example, in the Sydney water field, is it not correct - when you take into account all the seasonal variations, the fluctuations with the winter climate, the rainy season, the dry weather - that the actual water table has actually declined because of global warming?
MR. DAVID BRIGGINS: I guess it is probably too early to tell if there has been an overall decline. What we see is pretty much seasonal variations where it rises and falls. In the summertime it is, of course, at its lowest levels and that usually comes back in the fall, decreases again over the winter and rises again in the spring. We haven't seen an overall decline or downward trend to this point.
MR. MACKINNON: Maybe if you would give an undertaking to provide to the committee a list of the different areas of the province that would show what the water table level is today, above mean sea level, or whatever benchmark you use, as opposed to 10 years ago. One final question, with regard to the Sydney tar ponds, does your department have any documented evidence of any shape or form that the contamination from the Sydney tar ponds has permeated into the groundwater supply?
MR. WIGMORE: The actual Sydney water supply?
MR. MACKINNON: No, the groundwater below the site of the Sydney tar ponds.
MR. WIGMORE: I am not sure if we do have any information in that regard but we can provide that information to you as to any effect it has had on levels.
MR. MACKINNON: Now, I want to be clear, you are telling us you don't know if it has permeated into the groundwater level below that site?
MR. WIGMORE: I am telling you I don't specifically have that . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Does anyone in the department know?
MR. WIGMORE: Staff that are involved with the monitoring of the Sydney tar ponds would be able to provide that information because that would be readily available to them.
MR. MACKINNON: Would you give an undertaking to the committee to provide it within 48 hours?
MR. WIGMORE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It seems our government moved to correct the situation in Meadowview, Kings County and that is not good enough. The previous government seemed to ignore the situation for about eight years. Having said that, John MacDonell, I believe you are next.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you for the presentation. I think I am more interested in looking at water supply and concerns around supply, of the province, generally. The first thing that comes to my mind is the water strategy that you announced, or the minister had announced. I am really interested in knowing what exactly you expect that to be, what the approach on that strategy is and if it will involve any type of public consultation, how widespread it will be? I wasn't sure if there was actually going to be a strategy produced or if there was going to be a study to determine if we need a strategy. It seems to me there was a price tag attached to doing this so I guess I will make that question number one and I have a couple more.
MR. MCNAMARA: This strategy is going to be released later this summer, but I will ask Kate to talk about some of the details.
MS. MOIR: The drafts of the water strategy were reviewed with municipalities and public groups in the late 1990's. As a result of those discussions there have been significant revisions. There was considerable comment during the legislative review for the Environment Act; it also pertained to the water strategy. Those comments have also been incorporated in the revised draft. At this point in time there was no intention of doing further discussion, merely building on the comments we had received into the department over the last three or four years. We do have a draft, as the deputy has mentioned, that we have proposed for this summer. I was just going to add that a primary focus of the draft we are working on is drinking water supply protection. It was incorporated in the original draft and it has been brought forward.
MR. MACDONELL: Certainly, drinking-water supply, I would say would be of primary importance, I guess. What I hope is there, is that if the strategy around all the users of water, whether or not the water is for drinking or not, because I see previous to last year we had about three years of drought in the province, which significantly impacted the agricultural community, not to mention other users. I see the risk of a lot of those people who are drawing on the water supply and it may not be there. I am wondering if this strategy is to address agricultural concerns, municipal concerns and also, if there is anything in this around land use and its implications on water supply.
MS. MOIR: The strategy goes well beyond drinking water because the province is required to manage all of the water resources for a variety of users. They would go from industrial users, municipal, hydroelectric, fish, the instream use for recreation - they are addressed in the strategy. The strategy is not a drinking-water strategy alone, it is a broad strategy in the sense that water-supply protection is a key focus of the strategy. Yes, we are looking at land use and land management. We would also be looking at pollution prevention and best management practices for things like forestry operations around wetlands for agriculture. So those are action items that could reasonably fall out of the strategy as it is currently evolving.
MR. MACDONELL: I would be interested to know if you think what should come out of the strategy would be regulations that would impact on how our forest practices are carried out that would affect streams and water, et cetera, or the same for agriculture, industrial or whatever. Is this something that in some way is meant to dovetail with all of the other things that government is responsible for? That is certainly what I would like to see.
MS. MOIR: The strategy evolved in its development - a number of the other departments, including Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations - is based primarily on pollution prevention best management practice. It does not require regulation, but it would consider regulation if over the course of the next few years it was seen to be required. At the moment, we are looking at best management practice and a more voluntary approach to pollution prevention.
MR. MACDONELL: So that would really be the approach we have had up to now as well.
MS. MOIR: It is the approach that is advocated in the Environment Act in terms of working collaboratively with a number of stakeholders and we would hope to get better, stronger, and more relevant information out, but, as I said, if that doesn't work and we have problems, the regulatory option continues to exist.
MR. MACDONELL: Do you think it has worked so far?
MS. MOIR: In some situations, it has worked very well. We have some very good pollution prevention initiatives in the province; in other cases it has been less successful.
MR. MACDONELL: I will ask one more and then I will let other members have a chance. I would like to come back, if time permits. I am just curious about the role of the department. If the municipalities and school boards and so on are responsible to do the testing, and any problems that are encountered with the water supply, it is up to the department to ensure that those are met and taken care of, but if it is the responsibility of a water user to send in the results of testing or to monitor their water supply over a period of time - and I guess the one that comes to mind to me first is the Twin Mountain situation, where every three or four months they were supposed to monitor the water supply around that site, and that didn't get done, but it was the department's responsibility to ensure that it got done - I am just wondering what checks and balances the department has to make sure that it is doing its job to see that others are doing theirs?
MR. WIGMORE: You are correct. There were terms and conditions contained in the Twin Mountain approval that did require routine monitoring. In the case of Twin Mountain, they did monitor, but they were dry monitoring wells, which means they didn't have any results. Recently, we have gone back to Twin Mountain and had them extend their monitoring wells so that they do intercept the groundwater. So we are getting those results now. One of the difficulties we had is in the routine monitoring submission scheduling. We were relying primarily on a paper-based system, but we have changed that system so now it is all electronically provided, the reminders to the department.
MR. MACDONELL: Are you saying that they were checking the water in dry holes? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
MR. WIGMORE: It is. They put monitoring wells down and their reports were dry hole.
MR. MACDONELL: So I would think that most people would assume that wouldn't give a lot of information.
MR. WIGMORE: It didn't, except that it was dry. As a consequence, they did have to extend the monitoring wells to intercept the groundwater, as was actually required in their approval.
MR. BRIGGINS: I just wanted to add on. You mentioned about the testing of schools and those sorts of places. We have actually a requirement that they report those results to us so we will know which ones are being monitored and which ones aren't. They have to hold on to those records and make them available upon request at any time. We also use our sister departments. For example, with the schools, the Department of Education people, and another example would be Agriculture and Marketing. They have inspectors who are in the
restaurants and eating establishments, so they are assisting us as well, and helping us to be like eyes and ears out there in the field.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person on our list is Frank Chipman.
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in watershed protection areas. I can think of an area in my constituency. I had a call from a gentleman, quite some time ago, about designating an area, and that is a public water source. There has been a lot of clear-cutting in the area. How difficult is it to designate a watershed protection area?
MS. MOIR: It has been a fairly long process for a number of water supplies. It involves the public and fairly extensive discussion on what the issues in the water supply would be, how they could best be regulated and controlled and, also, working with the landowners in that area, just as you do with municipal planning strategy, so that they are well-informed of the consequences of their actions. The municipality, with the assistance of a number of representatives from our department, but also other government departments, identify issues, propose solutions, propose regulations. The proposed regulations and a surveyed boundary for the protected water area would come back to the Department of Environment and Labour for ministerial approval.
MR. CHIPMAN: This involves a large company, and they own considerable acreage in the area. Let's say it is designated a watershed protection area, does that company lose their rights? Are they compensated for the loss of the use of their land? How does that work?
MS. MOIR: They are not compensated for limitations on the scope of their use of that land. Again, as with municipal planning, the importance of the public discussion is because certain rights to the use of land are being eliminated or reduced for the individual property owners.
MR. CHIPMAN: I will ask this question to any of the three. Do you feel the guidelines are prohibitive enough with forestry in Nova Scotia? I can show you instances where companies or individuals have clear-cut rights to the shore of a lake; I guess what I am saying is that is a resource. I don't know if anybody in this room knows how much - if it is a finite resource - water do we have? Is it continuation? We only have so much.
MS. MOIR: We do only have so much and we do want to manage it to the very best we can. The department is currently working with the Department of Natural Resources and the Halifax Regional Municipality in their Pockwock Watershed to more fully assess what is appropriate cutting practice within water supply watersheds, and how exactly forest operations do impact on groundwater and surface water so that the Department of Natural Resources can, if appropriate, take steps.
MR. CHIPMAN: If you could make a recommendation, what would be your standard setbacks from a watercourse?
MS. MOIR: I think it is very easy to say 30 metres or 50 metres or 100 metres, but it very much depends on the slope of the land, the type of vegetation, the type of soil, the sensitivity of that vegetation, the erodability of the soil. It is not as cut and dried, as straightforward an answer, that is why we are doing the research in Pockwock.
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, just one final question. Is it the 0157 strain of E. coli that is the deadliest?
MR. BRIGGINS: I don't know if it is the deadliest, but that was the strain of the E. coli that was detected in Walkerton that caused the deaths. There are many different varieties or strains of E. coli that can have different effects on humans. That particular one was deadly.
MR. CHIPMAN: I read in an article recently that even organic foods that we think are safe, the use of manure in the production of that, that is why they recommend - you can get the E. coli bacteria from vegetables. It comes from faecal-matter coliform. One final point I wanted to make. Say I am out fishing, I take a drink of water out of the brook, there is no guarantee, even in public water supplies, that faecal matter can't come from another source, such as warm-blooded animals, deer, raccoon, fox, whatever. Can you determine, if you have a case of E. coli, that it wasn't animal or human or wildlife?
MR. BRIGGINS: That it wasn't?
MR. CHIPMAN: Yes, can you differentiate between the three?
MR. BRIGGINS: No, if you have E. coli, E. coli is a faecal coliform. That means it is only found in the human or animal waste. If you have E. coli, you know you have either human or animal waste present there.
MR. CHIPMAN: I don't know if it had ever been determined in Walkerton, but if there was a case, say in Nova Scotia, could you determine - if I took a drink of water or a public drinking supply, if there happened to be a herd of deer that congregated in that area through the winter, or raccoons got out there in the spring and they are after the clams or the frogs, and the same with coyotes, they are going to contaminate that area - whether it is animal or human?
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. BRIGGINS: There is no easy way to do that. There probably are tests you could do to try to differentiate the different types of bacteria and parasites and other micro-organisms that are there. I know there has been some work trying to develop ratios between
these, or even DNA-type testing to determine exactly the source. Again, that is more of a research-type of project right now, it is not readily available or not cheap to do.
MR. CHIPMAN: You must have a difficult job. If you have a case like this, where do you lay the blame? Is the blame laid upon the human that may be the cause or the animal?
MR. MCNAMARA: I think from a departmental point of view, it is often difficult to determine where the source of a problem has occurred. I think one of the most difficult or perplexing things we have is trying to find even the source of a contamination at times. On the other hand, how we do work is also working with the medical health officers from the Department of Health, trying to pick up when you get trends. That is where we are able to identify some things and then have a plan of attack to try to solve it or to ask if there is a common cause. This would relate, whether it is similar to food poisoning, when they have a number of outbreaks they can sometimes get back to a single source. Again, it is based on trends. It is an inexact science at times, being able to do this.
MR. CHIPMAN: A lot of people are hiking today. Would you advise them to carry their own water supplies? You certainly wouldn't want to drink out of a stream or a brook or puddle, would you?
MR. WIGMORE: It is not recommended. Or boil it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, the Hamm Government introduced comprehensive drinking laws to the province, designed to improve the quality of drinking water and delivery throughout the province. I hope that we never have a Walkerton, but there is no real guarantee that a case of water-borne illness won't strike Nova Scotians. Wouldn't you agree that the new regulations should improve the situation and lessen that possibility?
MR. WIGMORE: Can we guarantee it? No, but what we have put in place is adequate safeguards to minimize that possibility. The deputy mentioned the multi-barrier approach, with source protection treatment and monitoring and testing. One of the pivotal elements that is in place in Nova Scotia that was not in place in Walkerton is the immediate reporting of bad water to our department by the lab, through their registration process, which is significantly different than what happened in Walkerton.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that there are more boil water advisories now than ever before. Does this indicate that the water situation, the water quality is worsening, or is it just that we are being a lot more cautious?
MR. WIGMORE: I think what you will find is before this regulation came in, only the municipal water supplies were being tested. With the new regulation there is somewhere between, we estimate, 2,500 to 3,000 additional new supplies that we will be registering. They also have a mandatory requirement for reporting through their registration number that
is assigned to them by the department, and that number appears on any lab requisition that goes to the lab. Yes, boil advisories are up; it was expected as new water supplies are brought on, but that then gives the opportunity to correct that water supply, such that the incidents of boil advisories will go down. Actually, the number of boil advisories is surprisingly low, compared to the number of new suppliers that now have to report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I do think it is a very positive step that this government has taken, that now suppliers of water have to monitor and test that water. It seems to me that it was ridiculous that that was not a requirement in the past, to test for coliform and E. coli and so on.
Mr. Steele, you are next.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions along this idea of just how safe our water really is. I want to hasten to say that good things are happening and, Mr. Chairman, I agree with some of the stuff that is in the script in front of you there, that this government is doing some good things. For example, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Report that you referred to, Mr. McNamara, gives Nova Scotia a B- and the comment is that "Nova Scotia has recently pulled up its socks.". So good things are going on. We have good things like this water quality report from the Halifax Regional Water Commission reporting to their customers. Every one of their customers should have this in their hands, I think, within the next three months about the state of water quality in HRM. Those are all good things.
So just because I am going to focus on some of the weaknesses, I don't want anybody to think that I am not aware of and don't acknowledge the good things that are going on and the good things that this government is doing because they are doing some good things.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for saying that, Mr. Steele, because I know you have the same script in front of you.
MR. STEELE: I don't, actually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think everyone received that from the department.
MR. STEELE: One of the weaknesses in Nova Scotia is that there is no mandatory watershed protection. Watershed protection is optional and, really, only comes into play if the municipality or the supplier asks for it. Why is that? By watershed protection, of course, I am referring to the fact that the area is basically the drainage area. Why are water supplies not protected by mandatory regulation?
MR. MCNAMARA: First, as I mentioned in my comments, the protection initiative has to come from municipalities. We know that municipalities have competing interests that
they look at and are looking at. For example, some of the areas that provide water may be areas that were set aside or used by cottagers. So there are various interests. I am not saying it is right, but I am just saying that that is the interest that municipalities have to compete with. There are also prime sites for other types of development. So municipalities are probably trying to decide themselves what is the best use for that land. I just want to give a start. I am going to ask Kate to give some of the more details on it.
MS. MOIR: I think, in most of the province where you are dealing with large surface water supply areas, one would end up severely limiting activities over a very large land area. In the province, traditionally, controls over land use and the management of that land has been a municipal responsibility and a municipal level decision of the community, the level at which those controls would come into place. Most of the water supplies that have gone through a water supply management strategy, municipalities have purchased the most sensitive land so that they can exercise complete control requiring that significant restrictions be placed on an area that would run from central Dartmouth to Shubenacadie, Grand Lake if you are talking about the water supply for Elmsdale, and would be a major community decision. It is a choice. You could choose to regulate. The choice is to have reasonable decisions made at the municipal level.
MR. STEELE: Nova Scotia is one of four provinces that incorporates the National Drinking Water Guidelines, but it is my understanding that Nova Scotia doesn't incorporate all of them, but only some of them and that we test for some of the items listed in the guidelines, but not all of them. If that is true, that is a weakness, as well. So my double-barrelled question is, first of all, is it true that we don't test for everything in the guidelines and, if not, why not?
MR. BRIGGINS: Okay. We have a requirement that they actually meet all health-based guidelines. So if it is a health-based guideline, they are required to meet it. We don't require that they test for every parameter in the guideline on a regular basis. There is a minimum number of parameters that we do require that they test. The others are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so that depending on the situation and the water supply in question, they may be required to, in fact, do more testing. So we have that ability in the regulations. There is a minimum level of testing that has to be done and the possibility of more testing above that.
MR. STEELE: It is my understanding that labs that test water are not certified. There is no certification program in place, although one is being developed. Is that true and if it is true, when are we going to have a certification program in place?
MR. BRIGGINS: We actually do have a lab certification policy in place that will require all labs to be certified by January 2003. In the meantime, no new labs will be able to start up without certification and existing labs are working towards that. Most of the private
labs - I should say all of the private labs - already have certification. It is just some of the hospital labs that do bacteria testing that don't.
MR. STEELE: It is my understanding that there is no requirement for suppliers of drinking water to report to their customers on a regular basis, their test results. Is that true and if it is true, why aren't drinking water suppliers required to report to their customers on their water quality?
MR. WIGMORE: We recommend that municipalities make those test results and those reports available to their customers or to inform them, whatever method they see fit, as Halifax has done as one example. But we have not required or made it mandatory that they produce quarterly or annual reports to their customers, but we do require that they make them available.
MR. STEELE: It is clear to me and I guess to anybody who is watching what is going on now that one of the key functions of government here is auditing and enforcement. You can have the best guidelines and standards in the world, but if they are not audited and enforced, you run into a problem. We saw in Walkerton - which was a chain of events - that one of the elements in the chain was simple deception by the operators of the water utility falsifying reports, reporting false results. Preliminary reports from North Battleford seem to indicate that one possible cause of the problem they are having right now is simple human error, that a chemical filter was changed or maintained in such a way that it wasn't in place for a crucial period. I am saying that is possible, we don't know all the facts in North Battleford yet.
What is the department doing beyond setting standards to minimize the opportunities for human error and deceptions? For example, do you do any spot checks, spot audits? What are your enforcement tools beyond just examining reports that are sent in to you?
MR. WIGMORE: There are two elements - actually more than two elements. One is the actual classification for the water treatment facility and the other is the operator's certification. As part of our ongoing auditing program, municipal water supplies are audited. A full audit is conducted at least twice per year, more frequently for those at higher risk. Your larger scale treatment systems, such as would serve HRM, are extremely complex and have a high degree of operator proficiency. They are at less risk than a community that simply has screening and chlorination as a method of treatment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele, can you make this a quick question?
MR. STEELE: I am just getting to the heart of it, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could be allowed three more questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's make it two because our time is moving along.
MR. STEELE: Okay, because you can always get back to me I suppose. I am not sure, Mr. Wigmore, that I heard an answer to my question which is that it appears that a key element in poor water quality is human error and human deception. What steps is the department taking to minimize the opportunity for human error and human deception?
MR. WIGMORE: We do have the operator certification program, plus we do have the audit program. The audit program enables us to review their records over the past number of years and also their physical operation on a day-to-day basis. Plus, we also can take our own samples. When go in to do an audit on a facility, we are totally unannounced so the operator is unaware that we are coming.
MR. STEELE: Mr. McNamara in his presentation alluded to a shortage of certified operators. Are there any drinking water facilities currently being operated in Nova Scotia without a certified operator?
MR. WIGMORE: All operators are certified in this province. The difficulty that the deputy referred to was those plants being upgraded from say a class one facility to a class three. The original facility would have had a class one and there is a training requirement and years of operation requirement to move up in classification. What the deputy was referring to is we are going to put a bridging mechanism in whereby those facilities will have a certified operator and enable that operator who is not operating at that level to come up to the required standards.
MR. STEELE: So there are facilities with operators who do not meet current certification standards?
MR. WIGMORE: Don't meet plant classifications.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have to knock it off there. Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, good morning and welcome. I was wondering if somebody could give a brief description of what an aquifer is.
MR. BRIGGINS: An aquifer is basically any groundwater supply that contains enough water to supply a well. It is basically groundwater; we use the terms quite often interchangeably when we are talking about groundwater and aquifers.
MR. BOUDREAU: So is it fair to say that an aquifer is similar to a tree in which you have the trunk of a tree and the force of the water going through the ground, it branches off and the domestic wells are dug in the limbs, is that correct?
MR. BRIGGINS: Something like that. Instead of looking at it like an underground river, we tend to think of it more like a sponge; there is water in all the holes and crevices in the rock and soil and then the wells go down and tap that water.
MR. BOUDREAU: Isn't the pressure more important than the actual level of the aquifer?
MR. BRIGGINS: The pressure?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes.
MR. BRIGGINS: No, some are under pressure and what happens when you put a well into an aquifer that is under pressure, you get an artesian condition where the water will actually overflow to ground surface. That doesn't have to be under pressure, some of our best producing aquifers are surficial aquifers that aren't under pressure, they are just sand and gravel producing a lot of water.
MR. BOUDREAU: But in a case as you just described, could that affect the branches, the pressure of the water level into the branches?
MR. BRIGGINS: Yes, once you tap an aquifer with a well, there is the possibility that other wells tapping that same aquifer could be affected.
MR. BOUDREAU: I noticed that in the province there are over 90 sources of surface and groundwater but the majority is there are over 100 wells that are providing supply to municipal sources. What protection plan does your department have for people in surrounding areas who are receiving domestic wells from the same aquifer?
MR. BRIGGINS: Basically, those are dealt with through the approval process. These municipal wells would be required to have an approval to construct and operate that wellfield. As a condition of that approval, they will be usually required to do a survey of any neighbouring wells in the area of the wellfield and to conduct routine monitoring of groundwater levels in their own wells and possibly in those domestic residential wells. So that gives us careful monitoring of levels and any indication if there is a problem.
MR. BOUDREAU: In the case of CBRM - and I am familiar with that and I understand there are other situations throughout the province similar to that - in particular I believe it is 11 wells supplying groundwater, to the residents of Sydney. But in surrounding areas, in the rural areas, many residents believe their wells were affected. According to what you just said, that theory would be reasonable, but those residents were left out in the cold
and they had no avenue in which to pursue the impact on their personal, domestic wells. I know the municipality is supposed to be responsible for this, but who follows up to ensure that these residents' wells are protected?
MR. BRIGGINS: I am quite familiar with that situation, as well, because I was involved in the development of the approval and the conditions and met with the residents' committee down there on several occasions and we did build right into the approval a contingency plan for addressing these complaints or impacts on these residential wells. There was a well laid-out mechanism that people could use if they felt they were being impacted by the result of the wellfield being pumped. I know that there were many cases that went through that process and were adequately resolved and, yes, there was some unanticipated impact in some areas that had to be addressed. I am not aware that there was any situation where somebody didn't have any recourse available to them to get it addressed.
MR. BOUDREAU: I personally am, but I am not here to discuss individual problems. What I am concerned about now is, for instance, the wellfield in Sydney has 11 wellfields and it is in close proximity to Highway No. 125, a major highway. What plan does your department have in place to protect that supply given the situation where an emergency were to arise, such as a tanker turning over in that vicinity, to protect the aquifer from environmental damage?
MR. BRIGGINS: As part of that approval we did request a wellhead protection plan, and the CBRM did submit one to us. Included in there is a contingency plan to deal with spills and emergency-type situations like you just mentioned on Highway No. 125. Without having it right in front of me I don't know the details of that. I could find out, but that is addressed in this protection plan that they have in place.
MR. BOUDREAU: So, is that common across the province? I notice down in Oxford, I believe there is a well down there in Cumberland County with six wells. Is that the same type of plan that you have in place for that?
MR. BRIGGINS: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: I notice this plan is in place, but actually in discussion with local fire departments down there, there was no training provided either by your department or the CBRM to ensure that this contingency plan that you speak of is coordinated in the proper manner. So what do you have to say about that?
MR. BRIGGINS: Each plan is a little different. It is not one plan that fits every situation, so what they have in Sydney might not be the same as they have in Oxford or Amherst. I am not familiar with each situation as well as to how much training has been done with the fire departments and that sort of thing but it certainly sounds like a worthwhile thing to do.
MR. BOUDREAU: I want to understand this. Your department is not really responsible for individual wells. Is that correct?
MR. BRIGGINS: Not for the monitoring and testing of them. We have regulations in place that guides the construction of these wells and who drills them and what kind of materials they use and that sort of thing. So we regulate that area.
MR. BOUDREAU: Okay, that is fine, and I am familiar with that process. However, the source remains the responsibility of your department. Is that correct? For instance, the aquifer, that remains your responsibility, is that correct?
MR. BRIGGINS: If it is a third party activity off the individual's property, like a contamination situation, for example, leaking underground storage tank, hydrocarbons, we would investigate that, but there are naturally occurring contaminants that we would not be responsible for. For example, arsenic that occurred naturally in the ground is something you can't just remove the source or fix the source.
MR. BOUDREAU: Okay, but actually how I read that, correct me if I am wrong, the permit process for individual wells - I will refer to the CBRM just because I am familiar with that area - when the CBRM actually goes through the permit process to allow them to drill 11 wells, it eliminates your department, basically, of any responsibility to the outlying areas of any individual well that is owned by an individual landowner. Is that correct?
MR. WIGMORE: The CBRM does have a responsibility to address those types of issues through their community liaison committee.
MR. BOUDREAU: But the process eliminates your responsibility and turns it over to the municipality. Is that correct?
MR. WIGMORE: That's correct.
MR. BOUDREAU: So, in fact, there is no one out there actually policing municipalities throughout the province. The same thing, and this is what happened in Walkerton, nobody, gentlemen, other than the fox guarded the henhouse. So what plan do you have in place to ensure municipalities are providing the service that they agree upon during the permit process?
MR. BRIGGINS: These approvals that we talked about have terms and conditions that they have to meet and we do follow those. I know with CBRM we were receiving regular reports on water production rates, on complaints or impacts on neighbouring wells. We were following that quite closely.
MR. BOUDREAU: But it is obvious that when I referred to the protection plan that you guys didn't do any follow up to even know that the local fire departments were not provided any plan to coordinate any effort in the protection of their water supply. So how do you police municipalities' responsibility to provide clean drinking water to the residents?
MR. WIGMORE: They have to meet terms and conditions under their approval as far as things relative to water quality and reparation of wells that are impacted as a result of their withdrawal. The fact that they have a contingency plan that they may or may not have consulted with those emergency response people, we will check on.
MR. BOUDREAU: If I may, gentlemen, really in all fairness, if today a mishap happens on Highway No. 125 and there is an oil spill in the vicinity of 11 wells in the CBRM, you people have no idea whatsoever whether the municipality has the capability to deal with that issue. Do you?
MR. WIGMORE: We will check on it for you, definitely.
MR. BOUDREAU: But I am asking the question today, sir, and I am asking you sitting here right now. Do you? Answer the question, yes or no.
MR. WIGMORE: The CBRM does have the ability to respond to oil spill incidents, whether they have the ability to respond to an incident at the wellfield, I am not aware of it.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Boudreau. Now, we still have a couple of members who haven't had an opportunity to address our presenters. Just for your information, ladies and gentlemen, we have those for the second round, Brooke Taylor, Russell MacKinnon, Frank Chipman, John MacDonell and Graham Steele, in that order, so I guess we could stay here all day if time would allow us.
So Muriel Baillie, would you care.
MRS. MURIEL BAILLIE: I just have two quick questions, Mr. Chairman, if I may. This is called the National Drinking Policy, right? I heard you call it. I just wanted to know what, if any, involvement does the federal government have in regulating our Nova Scotia drinking water?
MR. MCNAMARA: The responsibility for water remains with each provincial jurisdiction. What the federal government is doing is working with the provinces in trying to develop one guideline. Secondly, and at a recent meeting, in fact, last week, in Winnipeg with the Ministers of Environment, there is an agreement between all the provinces and the federal government for the federal government to take some of their resource and put it into research that will assist all of us, because we don't have the money to do all the necessary research that is important in order to move forward on good drinking water quality. It is also to assist us in developing some common standards and guidelines that we could all agree on on a national basis. It also helps in terms of the sharing of information between the federal government and ourselves, and working particularly with Environment Canada.
[10:30 a.m.]
MRS. BAILLIE: So they are not giving Nova Scotia money by itself, they are supporting by pooling their money for all provinces.
MR. MCNAMARA: That is correct.
MRS. BAILLIE: The other question is close to home. I believe you were involved in working with the Town of Pictou, with regard to the Caribou watershed; this is for future use, a preventive thing. I was just wondering if you were still involved and could give me an update. Mr. Chairman, if that is too personal, I could see you later, if we don't have enough time.
MR. BRIGGINS: What you are talking about is what we call the Caribou Wellfield.
MRS. BAILLIE: Yes, that is up in my area.
MR. BRIGGINS: We are actually involved right now in discussions with the town and with the community on a protected water area designation under this process that we have been talking about. We are at the stage now where we are still looking at some of the land use issues that are involved, and that sort of thing. We are somewhat advanced now in that process. I don't know if that exactly answers your question.
MRS. BAILLIE: It is still ongoing then?
MR. BRIGGINS: Yes. It is still ongoing.
MRS. BAILLIE: You are still communicating and so on.
MR. BRIGGINS: Yes.
MRS. BAILLIE: Good. Thank you very much.
MR. MCNAMARA: Can I make one clarification about that last answer regarding the federal government putting in funds. Each of the provinces also puts funds into the secretariat for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The funds are pooled, in terms of doing research and other things. We are a contributor, but it is a larger pot of money for all of us to move forward on common issues that are controlled through a common secretariat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor, I believe you are next for the second round. Mr. O'Donnell, you are satisfied?
MR. CECIL O'DONNELL: I am satisfied.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will start our second round. We have approximately half an hour. Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like go back to that project off the Old Guysborough Road, back at the Halifax International Airport. I heard my friend, Brian Boudreau, mention that in some respects it is a little bit like the fox guarding the chicken house. Maybe I could use that same analogy relative to the water testing at that project. What time frame is in place? Is it done on an ad hoc, infrequent basis, or is it structured in such a way that the proponents - not just that site, but all private owners and operators of waste diversion facilities - are they required to submit water analyses on a weekly, monthly, hourly, what type of basis are they required, at that particular project, but in general, maybe, you could speak to the question?
MR. WIGMORE: Depending on the nature of the facility, typically it is a quarterly round of sampling that winds up being compiled in an annual report, to get the seasonal fluctuations in the water table and any potential contaminants that may be in it. Most approvals require quarterly monitoring with the submission of an annual report and an indication to us of any problems.
MR. TAYLOR: Would you not agree that a lot of things can happen within three months? At that particular site, in fact, construction debris was originally transported to the site. The community thought topsoil was going to come in to provide for the aftergrowth vegetation, et cetera, but out and out garbage, waste, tons and tons of compost, was transported to that site. Is the proponent or, to be more general, are proponents required to provide the Department of Environment and Labour with, for lack of a better word, weigh station slips, receipts regarding the number of tons that are transported out to any given project?
MR. WIGMORE: Typically they are, depending on the nature of the projects. For example, a landfill, there is a requirement for weigh scales so that you can accurately measure the amount of waste material that is going into the facility.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the smell at that site, even driving by at the speed limit with the windows up, is enough to water the eyes of an elephant. It is absolutely atrocious. All joking aside, it is absolutely terrible. I have been told that the proponent has not submitted the number of tons of organic and waste that have gone to that site and I am also told that the water monitoring is done, as you indicated, on a three month cycle. I am wondering if the department shouldn't consider tightening up the water monitoring, especially where that is the head water for a water course and where it is done on the honour system by the proponent. I mean, a lot of things can happen over a three month period. Would the department prepare to at least look at this and possibly come back with a
recommendation that would see water monitoring intervals somewhat tightened up, maybe on a monthly basis, at the very least? I don't think that would be too much to ask, quite frankly.
MR. WIGMORE: What we will do, as the investigation is part of an ongoing issue, we will indeed examine more frequent monitoring.
MR. TAYLOR: Just to close, Mr. Chairman, that investigation has been going on now for some time. I have to say that I am disappointed that the proponent is still permitted to transport whatever that material is. They call it over-size compost, but some of the stuff we have seen on the video clearly indicates that it is nothing but garbage. It certainly smells like garbage and looks a duck, so. Anyway, I will pass.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as it is not on the duck's feathers, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. MacKinnon, you're next.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the last set of questions I asked with regard to the Sydney tar ponds and the coke ovens site. I asked the question as to whether you had any evidence whatsoever as to whether the groundwater supply beneath that site is contaminated. You said you would get back to me within 48 hours. I have a problem with that, quite frankly, because this entire project has been ongoing since 1984. I am a little unsettled due to the fact that we have hundreds of families that live in that area. In fact, I believe, I am not sure which street it is, but there is one of the side streets where there is a natural spring that flows out of the ground there and residents use that water supply on a regular basis because the central municipal water supply wasn't that great. Are you telling us here today that no one in the department, after 17 years of testing and monitoring and supervision on this site knows whether the groundwater supply below that industrial site is contaminated?
MR. MCNAMARA: I think my comment to you was that I don't personally know.
MR. MACKINNON: Does anybody in the department, that is before this committee here today, have any evidence of that or any knowledge of that?
MR. MCNAMARA: The other members in our department, Mr. MacKinnon, are not here. I think the other thing, a couple of comments maybe just as well. One is the groundwater you were talking about is basically not going to, as you know, the main water supply for the city.
MR. MACKINNON: It doesn't matter where it is going. My question is, is it contaminated?
MR. MCNAMARA: I just have one other comment. We believe and know that the water supply for the residents of the City of Sydney is safe.
MR. MACKINNON: That is because it is coming from the rural aquifers that Mr. Boudreau referred to.
MR. MCNAMARA: That is correct, so I wasn't sure what your comment about the spring that people are drinking from.
MR. MACKINNON: Well there is. It is right in the Pier.
MR. MCNAMARA: I wanted to correct the impression . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I am not sure if it is off Prince Street or one of those side streets.
MR. MCNAMARA: I understand that. I just want to make sure that individuals understand that the drinking water that people would use in that area comes from the municipal water supply, not from that spring.
MR. MACKINNON: We understand that.
MR. BRIGGINS: We recommend that no springs actually be used. It doesn't matter where they are.
MR. MACKINNON: This bothers me. You folks are here today to talk about water and water quality. You are the chief spokespersons for the department, for all intents and purposes, such a major issue in the Province of Nova Scotia, and you can't come here and tell members of this committee as to whether this groundwater supply is contaminated or not. After 17 years, not one of you has an inkling of whether that water supply is contaminated or not. Is that what you are telling us? No one before this committee today has any idea as to whether that water supply is contaminated or not?
MR. MCNAMARA: That is correct, Mr. MacKinnon, we can't give you that information today, but I also want to tell you we came here today to talk about drinking water and that is what we did our preparations for.
MR. MACKINNON: You don't know how much groundwater we have in Nova Scotia; you've indicated that. You indicated you have guidelines and processes in place for drawing water out of the ground, but you don't know whether it replenishes itself, to what extent, where it is coming from, where it is going and yet you have a major industrial contaminated site. We have a groundwater supply underneath that that could be going anywhere and you are telling us that you don't know if it is going to have an effect on
somebody else's drinking water. It could be in New Victoria, it could be in New Waterford, it could be the Kilkenny Lake water supply, the New Waterford Lake.
MR. BOUDREAU: Are there people drinking that water?
MR. MACKINNON: That is what we need to know. Are there other people drinking out of that groundwater supply and you are telling us that you don't know that?
MR. MCNAMARA: What we can tell you is we know that groundwater is not flowing toward anywhere the drinking water is coming from; we can tell you that.
MR. MACKINNON: That is for the Pier, that is because the ones in the Pier are receiving their water supply from the Mira district. Now the people in the Mira district, their wells are either going dry or they are now having major problems, and I can give you half a dozen examples, I can take you to their homes, it is absolutely deplorable. You are now before the committee telling us, as the guardians of our water supply, that you don't have the answers, you really don't have your finger on the actual source of the issue.
Do you have any idea how much water is being exported from of Nova Scotia?
MR. BRIGGINS: We don't export water.
MR. MACKINNON: That wasn't my question. Do you have any idea of how much water is being exported out of Nova Scotia?
MR. BRIGGINS: The only water that we can think of that might be exported might be spring water that occasionally goes to Sparkling Spring sales or something like that. If you are talking about bulk water supply, the answer is none.
MR. MACKINNON: But individually contained, it is.
MR. BRIGGINS: There may be some.
MR. MACKINNON: There may be, you don't know for sure. You have pretty well answered my questions. You don't have a handle on the situation.
MR. MCNAMARA: I will have Kate answer the question for you.
MS. MOIR: The only water that would be leaving the province is going out in small bottles with groups like Sparkling Springs or the other water bottling companies. There are, I believe, four of those licences out at the moment. There is no bulk removal of water from the province.
MR. MACKINNON: They don't have a handle on the situation, so there is no sense asking any more questions.
MR. CHIPMAN: I was just thinking as I lift this cup to my lips, I certainly do so with a lot of faith and there really is no guarantee. We don't live in a perfect world and there is nothing that is fail-safe. I have two simple questions. Do you think we are doing enough to educate and inform the public of possible causes? Even children - and I spoke about this earlier - with wildlife, animal fecal matter, do we educate in the school system?
MR. MCNAMARA: I think one of the things that we do have to look at, Mr. Chipman, is more education and that was what I was referring to in my remarks. What we are going to do is use some of the extra resources we have to move toward more education, in terms of educating people to test their water, what to be aware of, and to look at how to deal with their sewage management, and working with other departments to ensure that the agricultural sector and the forestry sector practice good management practices as well. That is something we are putting increased emphasis on in the next year.
We were also trying to work with some of the larger companies who have mail that goes into every house, to try to see if we can put educational material in it so we can have different ways of getting educational information into everyone's hands.
MR. CHIPMAN: Sewage sludge. Now Kings County have a municipal by-law so that sewage sludge in Kings County can't be spread. Annapolis County doesn't have a by-law, so the sewage sludge from Kings County comes to Annapolis County and it is spread on fields. What are the regulations? Are the pretty rigid? I know they don't spread the stuff in the spring of the year, but is it any more harmful than animal manure?
MR. WIGMORE: There are sewage sludge management guidelines in our Nova Scotia Standards and Construction Manual. As the deputy indicated before, we are looking at the entire nutrient management component which includes fertilizers, manures, municipal sludges and septic waste.
MR. CHIPMAN: But is human fecal matter any more harmful than animal?
MR. WIGMORE: No, the stuff that would be coming out of a treatment plant would have all been digested and stabilized.
MR. CHIPMAN: Right. So I guess my question is, you say it has been stabilized and digested, and I know the one in Kings County, that has been reduced from the amount that they used to produce to what they produce now, but is there any more, I mean how would you determine - I guess I am getting back to the same question - if there was a problem in that area with drinking water or contamination, it is pretty difficult to determine whether it is animal or human, isn't it?
MR. WIGMORE: With the exception of doing DNA testing? You are absolutely correct.
MR. CHIPMAN: So you can blame one, but it may be the other and the only way you would know would be with DNA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell. I am sorry about the delay there, I lost our list.
MR. MACDONELL: That is okay, I will just ask another question to make up for it. Just a couple of short things, I wonder does the department have any initiative around, say with the use of pesticides in agriculture or any other area that may be used, to go out and do monitoring of groundwater to determine the residual effect of pesticides, whether or not from the previous year's spraying that the pesticides have overwintered and they are still in the soil and the possibility of them getting in the water, does the department do anything in that regard at all?
MR. BRIGGINS: We don't have an overall pesticide testing program. We do some limited sampling in certain areas, mostly in the Annapolis Valley area. So we have done some testing to indicate that there is some very low concentrations of pesticides that are detected in the groundwater, but nothing on a scale that would be . . .
MR. MACDONELL: No comprehensive study?
MR. BRIGGINS: No. Just because of the fact that there are so many different types of pesticides, it is expensive to do. We prefer to look at other indicators, like bacteria and nitrates and other chemical parameters, and then focus in if there is a problem identified from those.
MR. MACDONELL: I would assume there is probably a fair bit of research in other jurisdictions too that the department could use and I would think it would be something it would be worth looking at because I would think if they accumulate over time, then there could be a problem.
The question on the education of children, I think children are quite green in their knowledge today compared to maybe some adults. I think if we educated the children in the Legislature we might be one step further ahead to solving a lot of the problems. I am wondering around utilities that the province took care of, I am thinking of one that supplies water to Stora, for example. Are we still monitoring those utilities because I think we are on the hook if that utility was to shut down or break down and the supply was to cease under our agreement. We would have to pay big time I think for them to get their water. Are we still in that situation?
MR. WIGMORE: Yes, the operation of the utilities was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Public Works last year so they are responsible for the ongoing provision of water to Stora and the Town of Port Hawkesbury.
MR. MACDONELL: So what role does the Department of Environment have on that water?
MR. WIGMORE: In that particular case they are supplying industrial quality water to both Stora, Nova Scotia Power and they are also supplying raw water to the Town of Port Hawkesbury. Port Hawkesbury is then responsible for treating that water to drinking water standards.
MR. MACDONELL: So the government really isn't responsible that that is at a drinking water standard before they get it.
MR. WIGMORE: No, it is the responsibility of the Town of Port Hawkesbury.
MR. MACDONELL: I guess one other thing I just want to raise, I am wondering if anybody has raised with the department, I live in a rural area and there is a lot of all-terrain vehicle use. It seems that some of the best places they like to run are where it is wet and so I have real concerns about surface water in regard to habitat for amphibians, streams for fish, et cetera, and I just wonder if anybody has raised this concern and if the province has ever thought about even stricter regulation on the use of all-terrain vehicles when it comes to the outdoors and the water supply?
MR. MCNAMARA: This is an area that is under the Department of Natural Resources, particularly looking at wetlands, which is also under their responsibility. But it is something that we would encourage that there be a proper use of ATVs and on a proper trail so that it doesn't impact either our wildlife or our water or even our protected spaces.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, I will hand off.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think it would be too easy for us to say that a Walkerton couldn't happen here; it would be too easy to say that it was just a matter of deception, they had untrained, uncertified operators who lied about their test results. As is evident from the material that we have before us today, there is a great deal more to Walkerton than that, that was just one link in the chain. It would be too easy for us to say that North Battleford couldn't happen here, because it would be too easy for us to say that that was just a matter of putting a sewage plant upstream from the water intake plant, which doesn't sound very smart, but we have to remember that that system was in place for a number of years without any problem at all. So there was a good deal more to North Battleford than just that apparent design or concept flaw.
We are doing good things here in Nova Scotia, but the fact remains that there is still no mandatory watershed protection. There is no lab certification policy yet in place; there is no mandatory testing for the majority of the national standards; and there is no mandatory public reporting of test results. The department doesn't have enough audit and enforcement resources to minimize the opportunities for human error and deception. We have an aging water infrastructure and we heard this morning that we have a shortage of certified operators.
So in light of these issues, I would like to ask, Mr. McNamara, what assurances can you give to Nova Scotians that a Walkerton or a North Battleford couldn't happen here?
MR. MCNAMARA: I think it was mentioned earlier, none of us can guarantee, but I think what we have to look at is that we have been continually improving what we are trying to do in this province and we do have a game plan to move forward, and continuous improvement with the resources we have to work with. Even over the next year, in the extra money that was provided through the budgetary process to us to hire, for example, four more hydrogeologists who will be around the province to assist not only the province, but lend their expertise to others who are water suppliers in the province; to develop our databases much better so that we can be aware of every site, whether it is a well, I am talking about wells, we have the major suppliers; and to be able to work with the municipalities and also the federal government to make our provincial water much safer.
We also recognize, as I mentioned in my remarks, that good environment, good water, is good health. We recognize that is very important. I think it is incumbent upon us as a department, as well as a government, to continually improve our processes.
MR. STEELE: If you could name three places in Nova Scotia, that in your department's opinion are most at risk, what would they be?
MR. MCNAMARA: Snides Lake would be one.
MR. STEELE: Where's that?
MS. MOIR: Shubenacadie.
MR. MCNAMARA: We have to make sure that there are good processes in place to look at it. We are very aware of that one.
MS. MOIR: Snides Lake in East Hants is a very small water supply watershed in an agricultural area, we are very concerned about that and we are closely in touch with the community that is currently trying to upgrade their watershed management plan there.
In the Valley, we have concerns with the municipal wells that are located in a narrow strip close to the highway and in a fairly limited aquifer. There is urban development very close to many of them, we are very concerned about that situation. In the Pictou area, the East River has water supplies on it that we like to watch very closely, as well. Having said that, all of the water supplies need to be monitored carefully, looked after well. None of these areas of concern are keeping us awake at night.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, if I might, just one more question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I am sorry. I am going to have to cut you off there. I will turn to Mr. Boudreau. You get the second last word. I will reserve the last word for myself.
MR. BOUDREAU: I want to revert back to the Sydney tar ponds. I don't want to start a scare tactic here but I do have residents, particularly in Westmount and Coxheath who did experience water difficulties this past winter. So my question is, is there anyone here today, or in your department who is familiar with the aquifer beneath the Sydney tar ponds?
MR. MCNAMARA: Just conferring with my staff, one of the things we can assure is that we know that the water under the Sydney tar ponds is not going to any drinking supply area in the CBRM area. That we can guarantee you.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Deputy Minister, depending on the direction this aquifer travels, there may domestic wells within the aquifer outside the city limits. Just because there is a harbour on the top of the ground that separates my community with the tar ponds doesn't mean that the aquifer is not underneath and being impacted in drinking water. So my concern is, will you undertake to the committee to review the direction and if there are any domestic well owners who are obtaining source from that water supply, that your department approach them immediately to have their wells tested?
MR. MCNAMARA: I am going to ask Mr. Briggins to address that so you have the person who has the most knowledge among us on that issue.
MR. BRIGGINS: We are not aware that groundwater contamination is an issue there. We can say that much. We are not aware of any drinking water supplies in that area.
MR. BOUDREAU: Are the tests ongoing in that area?
MR. BRIGGINS: We will check because I am not involved and I have not seen all the studies that come out what studies have been done. But I am sure, as part of the studies that have been done they have addressed this issue and, if they haven't, certainly we would look into that, yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: Would you undertake to do that immediately, please?
MR. WIGMORE: I have it down as one of the undertakings from the previous question.
MR. BOUDREAU: Will you report back to the committee?
MR. WIGMORE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much. We have given you some homework. I just want to clarify something. From 1995 to 1999, water testing was cancelled by the previous government, probably because of supposed cost-cutting measures. Our government saw the need to continue this and we put that back in place. I just want to make that clear. It is very important. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we now have a better appreciation for the challenges you and your department staff face on a daily basis with regard to our most precious resource. Water is certainly vital to our good health and well-being. I thank you very much for a most interesting presentation. Thank you, all.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are also going to leave each of you with a package of information that may be useful to you, as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On a further note, I just want to suggest that the Subcommittee on Resources, Mr. MacDonell, Mr. Boudreau and Mr. Taylor, if they could stay behind for a few moments.
[The committee adjourned at 11:00 a.m.]
