Feb. 23 - continued;

Source water protection is featured as one of the basic principles of the DWQIP, and is
included as a condition on the 2008 Operating Permit of the NCID water system. The
purposes of the source water protection plan are (i) “to identify areas and activities that
could affect the quality, quantity, and timing of flow of the drinking water source” and, (ii)
“to reduce threats to water quality and provide an additional barrier for drinking water protection.” By participating in the DWQIP, the NCID would be able to “influence
planning and measure impacts on the system.”
The Board of Trustees of the NCID was
asked to “provide a source water protection plan” for the NCIDʼs drinking water source,
and to “continue to keep updates of activities in the [Camp Run Creek] watershed.” The
IHA was to work together with the NCID to ensure that “even with the approval of
activities, persons conducting activities within watershed source areas [were] still to
have a responsibility to avoid or remediate drinking water hazards.” The IHA
“recommends that issuing officials or approving officers seek an indication that source water protection has been considered and that there will not be a drinking water health hazard expected as a result of normal operations.”
The NCID became very excited about complying with the DWQIP and began to
immediately implement the IHA policy through participation in the source water
protection plan procedure. As a first step in this program, the NCIDʼs drinking water
source protection plan began with the completion of a Source-to-Tap Assessment in late 2007. The outcomes of this assessment were discussed with a Drinking Water Team of
IHA representatives in a meeting on December 11, 2007. The second part of the NCIDʼs
source protection plan, completion of a comprehensive assessment of the drinking
water source, was just underway when the water supplier became aware of an
imminent threat to the source of its drinking water. The proposed logging of the Camp
Run Creek watershed was uncovered by the water supplier in November 2007 and was
immediately identified as a potential threat to the drinking water quality, quantity, and
timing of flow for the NCID. There was a direct, serious risk that the publicʼs health -
specifically the water users of the NCID - would be adversely affected by the proposed
logging in the Camp Run Creek watershed. The NCID appealed to the IHA through
Section 29 of the Drinking Water Protection Act in a letter dated November 1, 2007. This
formal request for an investigation by the Drinking Water Officer was denied in a letter
dated December 18, 2007. The DWO asserted in that letter that there was “no simple
means to prohibit activities such as logging” in the Camp Run Creek watershed unless:
✤ “[the logging company] does not address the concerns of contamination of the
NCID [source drinking water supply],” and/or
✤ “[the logging company] refuses to engage with the NCID on this issue.”
The NCID maintains that this has in fact occurred, and this document will now address
the CVFCʼs contravention of these two provisions.
That there are concerns of contamination of the NCIDʼs community drinking water
supply is a given. There can be absolutely no reasonable doubt that logging is
detrimental to the quality of drinking water coming from affected watersheds, and that
this loss of source water quality will result in a drinking water health hazard in a water
supply system. There is a very disturbing example of this statement in the local
watershed directly adjacent to the Camp Run Creek watershed. One has only to view
the utter ecological devastation apparent in the Sullivan Creek watershed, logged over
forty years ago; that the water from this creek is highly contaminated and unusable as a
source of drinking water to this day is a reflection of the fragility and sensitivity of
drinking watersheds.
The authority vested in the IHAʼs DWO position makes it incumbent upon this MoH
official to reduce risks to public health by protecting water users from changes in water
quality that may cause increased threats to their health. Section 23 (1a) of the DWPA
dictates that “a person must not introduce anything or cause or allow anything to be
introduced into a domestic water system, a drinking water source, a well recharge zone
or an area adjacent to a drinking water source if this will result is or likely to result in a
drinking water health hazard in relation to a domestic water system,” or (2) “if it is
foreseeable that, as a result, the owner of the domestic water system would have to
limit the use of the water provided by the system on the basis that there may be a risk of
a drinking water health hazard.” Section 23 of the DWPA legislation provides protection
for water users from all manner of destructive elements of logging that lead to
contamination in drinking watershed source waters, resulting in deleterious effects on
human health.
With logging, there are a number of roads constructed, and there are activities in the
riparian areas of a watershed. Additional sediments from logging do affect water
turbidity, and turbidity does affect chlorine demand. This makes it more difficult for the
water purveyor to maintain chlorine residuals at the ends of the distribution system. The
proliferation of bio-slime materials throughout the distribution system further threatens
water quality and the water usersʼ health. Indirectly, increased turbidity also affects algal blooms, colour, taste and odours, and the overall organic loading which then affects
trihalomethane generation. Trihalomethanes are proven toxic compounds that have an
adverse effect on human health.
The ʻgrandfather knows bestʼ attitude of the CVFC towards these serious NCID source
water concerns is most disconcerting to the NCID Board of Trustees. There has not
been any meaningful, relevant discussion with the logging company about the
corruption of the NCIDʼs water quality, rather, whatever the water supplier has been able to elucidate has come from their own examination of the CVFCʼs 2007 FSP. There has been an overriding attitude of avoidance by the CVFC. Indeed, the NCID is left feeling
that if the right questions are not asked of the CVFC, that the logging company is not
forthcoming with any information. This has led to an atmosphere of mistrust and
skepticism on the NCIDʼs part. The CVFCʼs eco-forestry rhetoric, combined with the
often misleading and inaccurate logging lingo, has driven a wedge between themselves
and the NCID Board. There have been no attempts made by the CVFC to alleviate the
justifiable watershed protection concerns of the NCID.
Section 23 of the DWPA provides an avenue for further protection for water users from
other destructive elements of logging that lead to contamination in drinking watershed
source waters, resulting in deleterious effects on human health. Logging activities in
drinking watersheds also necessarily increase risk to domestic water supplies through
introduction of pathogens and chemicals and petrochemicals, along with other substances. The CVFC has not shown any inclination towards acknowledging the very real concerns of the water supplier in these areas. What is abundantly clear to the NCID, through their study of the logging companyʼs doctrines, is that the CVFC has not made any provisions in their FSP for precautions that would be taken to reduce the potential of introduced risk or contamination. For example, what precautions would be taken to preclude the introduction of human waste into the Camp Run Creek watershed? What assurances would the NCID have that logging employees will not be carrying infectious diseases that could be transmitted to the water supply in the
watershed? How would refueling and maintenance of machinery be handled? Would an environmental monitor be on hand to ensure equipment is cleaned and fueled away
from drainage/riparian areas? Would any spilled petrochemicals, contaminated soils
and vegetation be removed and transported off site to a proper disposal facility? Would
any spills or contamination be documented in an environmental monitoring summary?
Would machinery use alternative lubricants such as vegetable oil instead of
petrochemicals? What precautions would be used for containing sediment and runoff
from logging access roads? What safeguarding measures are in place for the use of
fertilizers and pesticides in the Camp Run Creek watershed basin?
The NCID has no effective treatment in place to deal with any of the water quality
problems described above. The MoH's emphasis towards 'treatment' and 'potability' of
drinking water has completely obfuscated their directives aimed at the protection of
drinking water sources in order to protect human health. The current emphasis is on the
technologies for making water potable after it has been degraded by logging; this is an
expensive rationale (to the taxpayer) for further degradation of our drinking watershed
sources.
The NCID is an active participant in the DWQIP of the IHA; towards that end, the water
purveyor has sought to implement IHAʼs source water protection plan procedure to the
best of their ability and in good faith. Monitoring of activities in the Camp Run Creek
watershed has led the NCID to identify an activity (the proposed logging) that is a
significant risk to the publicʼs health because of the imminent drinking water health
hazard presented by the proposed resource extraction activity. The NCID is relying upon
the IHA to uphold their end of the partnership, and to enforce the DWPAʼs clear
prohibition against contaminating drinking water sources (Section 23). Very simply, the
NCID asserts that the evidence supplied in this statement implores the MoHʼs DWO to
conduct a DWPA Section 29 investigation forthwith. It then follows that a hazard
abatement and prevention order, issued by the DWO under Section 25, is the next
logical step in this matter.