Shunpiking Online Vo.3 No.2 “I have examined the recent provincial guidelines with respect to groundwater removal and believe they are deficient” by Dr. Paul F. Brodie

Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006
From: Paul Brodie pbrodie@hfx.eastlink.ca

To: morashkg@gov.ns.ca, Peter Kelly kellyp@region.halifax.ns.ca

Hon. Kerry Morash
Minister of Environment and Labour,

I have examined the recent provincial guidelines with respect to groundwater removal and believe they are deficient.

Section 1.1 of this Nova Scotia Environment and Labour document state that, under the Environment Act, approval is required if withdrawal exceeds 23,000 litres per day. This is 23 metric tonnes, a sizeable amount, yet an estimate of withdrawal of one litre less than this does not require provincial government approval. The threshold does not take into account the size or quality of the groundwater reserves throughout the province. This standard is defficient for a 2004 provincial standard, and is inappropriate within the context of the water and health issues presently experienced in Canada.

Health and Sustainability are incorporated into the mandate of HRM, and is inconsistent with the vagaries of provincial groundwater standards. For example, section 1.2 indicates that NSEL does not require that withdrawals below the threshold of 23,000 liters need to be sustainable. This section also states that (1) withdrawal rates must not cause unacceptable environmental, economic or social consequences; (2) existing users are not required to modify operations to accommodate the new wells; (3) withdrawal based on first-come, first serve basis; and (4) allocations are based on current, rather than projected needs of the applicant.

The guidelines continue for several pages. Yet it would appear that all such guidelines established by NSEL do not apply to situations where withdrawal rates are estimated (by non-government engineers) to be below the 23,000 litre threshold, and in no way provide any form of protection for existing well users. In fact, would seem that nothing is required at all.

It would seem that several wells can be drilled to mask the actual withdrawal volume.

These guidelines seem archaic by any measure. The clause "grandfathered in" is a frequently-used loophole by so many developers and by HRM. We are dealing with potential health issues when dealing with allocation of groundwater use. If there is the slightest possibility that drinking water may be compromised, approval of additional groundwater removal must be denied. I am not aware that there is such laxity in the entire country, when it comes to matters of health. In terms of national standards for food and drugs, any suspicion that human health may be compromised results in cessation of production of that item as well as removal of existing stocks. Not so in Nova Scotia, when it comes to drinking water, as long as the applicant claims to withdraw slightly less than 23,000 litres from one well. It would seem that several wells can be drilled to mask the actual withdrawal volume.

Both NSEL and HRM are required to address the glaring deficiencies in drinking water standards, in fact there appear to be no standards at all, merely toothless guidelines full of loopholes.

The Destiny Development proposal at Ingramport will increase the demand at that site by 1000 per cent to 2000 per cent, in an area where the immediate residents already are experiencing problems with volume and quality. At best, it would appear that the site can barely tolerate the existing single house. The comments by the non-government engineer for Destiny at the Nov 28, 2005 meeting at Black Point generated concern rather than assurance: stating that the proposed development would require only two per cent of the aquifer from Ingramport to Black Point, followed by another statement that the drawdown would affect only the immediate wells. This seems to be an acknowledgement that groundwater is not immediately free-flowing throughout the aquifer, and therefore the figure of two per cent is not appropriate, in fact quite misleading.

I believe it is time that both HRM and NSEL become seriously involved in issues of health and sustainability. Thus far, neither office has provided me with any reassurance that there is any leadership on this issue. Both HRM and NSEL should be held accountable should the affected residents seek recourse.

Dr. Paul F. Brodie
Research Scientist
316 Kennedys Rd.
Boutiliers Point HRM
Nova Scotia
B3Z 1V7