Editor:
Further to Keith Maxwell’s letter of Sept. 29, re: Reservoir Proposals, he makes some excellent points. When Mayor John Henderson proposed using the Dusty Road well (which had already been drilled and tested clean) as a temporary water source, he was voted down by the SCRD board. Only one director, Alton Toth, supported the proposal. Most of the negative views expressed by board members were about potential contamination from both the Heidelberg mine and the landfill. As Mr. Maxwell correctly pointed out, placing the proposed water reservoir in the mine exposes it to contamination from lands that have had sewage biosolids applied over the last 20 years. In addition, there is potential contamination from the unlined landfill site above the mine. No one would ever accept placing biosolids in our drinking water catchment areas, so how is it that the SCRD directors have now voted in favour of placing a reservoir next to a biosolids area?
Have the directors lowered their standards/risk threshold for possible contamination of drinking water?
Where are the contaminated site and health risk assessments – have any provincial health officials signed off on this? I commend the shíshálh Nation for taking urgent action when the SCRD has not, but surely, the Site B reservoir would provide a better option. It poses no contamination issues, does not require any pumping, could have four times the capacity of the gravel pit site and would allow for the re-naturalization of Chapman Lake. In light of the biosolids issue, the decision to move forward with the mine option and not the Site B option needs to be revisited and, in my opinion, reversed. Keeping our drinking water clean must be our highest priority.
Greg Deacon, East Porpoise Bay
