Fluoride has never been added to the well-based water system that serves "old Milton". Unfortunately it is being added to the lake-based water system in Milton and the rest of Halton.
The Region favours fluoridation and every couple of years proposes to put fluoride in Milton's well-based water. The people of old Milton express their opposition and the issue recedes. The last Region report was tabled at the Region Health and Social Services Committee meeting on Feb. 24 2004.
This is primarily an issue for the residents of "old Milton" but does affect rural residents on Derry Road along the path of the water pipe in to Milton from the Rattlesnake area.
MRRA Position
MRRA encourages residents on Town well water to read the various opinions on this issue, and opposes any attempts by the Region to force fluoridation without a majority vote by affected residents.
Status/Opinion
Milton has some of the purest water in Ontario. Fluoridation would be medicating this pure water.Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that criminals cannot be medicated against their will. Law-abiding citizens should have at least as many rights.
Fluoride is a waste bi-product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and is a class 1 toxic waste. It accumulates in the bones and brain.It has been banned or removed from all municipal water in Europe except Ireland. Many doctors who were actively promoting fluoridation in the 70's have reversed their stance as it has never been tested. In 1944 Oscar Ewing, a lawyer for Alcoa, was paid an annual salary of $750,000 to determine this poison beneficial.
Fluorosis, a mottling of the teeth is a first sign of fluoride poisoning. By Halton Region's tests, Milton children have lower levels of fluorosis - not zero because fluoride accumulates in foods processed in areas where water is fluoridated.
For those who believe fluoride is beneficial, parents can purchase fluoridated toothpaste, teach their children good oral hygiene and limit sweets. This would cost much less than the $250,000 estimated cost to install equipment and would not infringe on the rights of those who believe fluoride to be toxic.
While Milton Council does not support Fluoridation, the Region has control. The issue now appears to be on hold but we encourage those affected to research the issue beyond the simple tooth-decay study. The following are some resources:
- The Fluoride Action Network is a world-wide organization based in the U.S. and dedicated to stopping fluoridation. The website is www.fluoridealert.org.
- The Health Action Network Society provides information, not a point of view. The website is www.hans.org. Select Articles and click Fluoride for a wealth of information on the subject.
- Alive is a Canadian Natural Health Magazine. The website is www.alivepublishing.com. Select Health Defined and do a subject search on Fluoride for several articles.
Fluoridation uses sodium fluoride which is a class 1 toxic waste byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and its effect is cumulative in the human body. Sodium fluoride is causing many health problems with little or no reduction in dental cavities.
As citizens of Halton, we must continue to strive to have fluoride removed from our drinking water.
Contributor/Opinion: Paul Bousfield 20/02/07 Email me
The Woodbine Entertainment Group has a proposal to build a luxury 10-storey hotel and an 18 hole golf course at Mohawk. This raises issues of traffic, water, and sewage treatment. Bill 27 created a moratorium on geenbelt development for 2004 so the project was put on hold. It returned in 2007. The link is to a Milton Champion story of December 18, 2007.
Status
On Monday July 20, 2009 there will be an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) meeting held at the MILTON SPORT CENTRE starting at 10:00 AM.
This hearing is a result of Woodbine Entertainment Group appealing to the OMB under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, to allow the rezoning of the land at 9430 Guelph Line to allow for a 18 hole golf course with driving range and a club house and a 10 story hotel with 196 rooms and other hotel amenities.
After talking with the representative at Woodbine Entertainment Group it is my belief that their intentions are to proceed, if the rezoning appeal is passed, with the building of the golf course and complete the entire expansion in stages as the economy improves. It is felt that at this time the economic environment could not sustain a hotel complex.
I plan on attending the hearing on July 20th and will update my findings.
Contributor/Opinion Rick Matchett 22/05/09 Email me
The Halton Biosolids Management Committee was formed and had its first meeting on May 19, 2005.The purpose of the committee is to advise and assist the Region of Halton with respect to the management of the biosolids program on a Region-wide basis, and to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of Halton’s goals, strategies, objectives and policies. It also serves as a liaison committee between the Biosolids Management Centre and neighbouring residents.
Up to the time of the 2006 municipal election this committee has looked at the different types of processing including anaerobic digestion (status quo), pelletization, gasification, lime stabilization, incineration, and reluctantly aerobic digestion. I have made repeated delegations to this committee promoting the benefits of aerobic digestion of biosolids/sewage sludge when applied as a soil amendment to agricultural land. The committee has also gone on two field trips: one to a lime stabilization plant (N-Viro) in the Sarnia Ontario area: the second to an incineration plant in Peel Region. As of now, there is no field trip planned for the aerobic digestion plant in Lockport, New York.
Status/Opinion
Lime stabilization produces a sand-like material that has a PH of 12. This is not good
when Halton soils are generally above neutral PH of 7 already. Soils above PH of 7 generally have a nutrient up-take problem. Lime stabilization creates heat when the lime reacts with the organic matter. This heat is used to destroy pathogens, but unfortunately leaves the end product lifeless of beneficial organisms and chemically and energetically dead. At a cost of around $400.00/tonne, lime stabilization is not a good choice for Halton Region.
Incineration of biosolids requires the addition of a combustible fuel to create the high heat that will definitely destroy pathogens but also creates a great quantity of ash that has to be removed by scrubbers. Although the scrubber technology is improving there is still microscopic particles and vapours that get through into the atmosphere increasing the level of smog and greenhouse gases. With little recovery of heat, incineration is not an energy wise use of biosolids when nothing is being returned to the soil from where it came. Incineration of biosolids might have a rate use where extremely virulent strains of pathogens exist such as in quarantine areas and hopefully only on a small scale. For these reasons incineration is still an option but I believe there are better options for the processing of biosolids in Halton Region.
There was a presentation by Mr. Wilson Nolan representing Liberty Energy Projects (gasification). Gasification is a process of heating a mixture of biomass (wood chips) and dewatered biosolids to a point that it turns in to a gas that is burnt to produce electric power. The plant proposed for Hamilton will use 1089 tonnes of biosolids, 417 tonnes of wood chips per day to produce 5 megawatts of power, 40% of this material will have to be scrubbed out of the effluent gases before being released to the atmosphere, or 602 tonnes of burnt ash (silica). Scrubber technology is improving but there is still release of microscopic particles and gases increasing smog and greenhouse gases. Mr. Nolan said that special attention had to be put to extract mercury vapour from the exhaust gases. This process has merit where there is extensive industrial effluent entering into the sewage sludge/biosolids stream, but is still not a wise use of energy, very dirty source of energy and no material or energy is going back to the soil where it originated. Since Halton Region has strict regulations on industrial effluent releases and biosolids that far exceed ministry of the environment guidelines for toxin levels. Gasification is a possible process but there are processes that better fit Halton Regional needs.
Aerobic biosolids is a process of composting dewatered anaerobic biosolids to create a soil like material. Pathogens are killed by heat and the aerobic biosolids are inoculated with beneficial microbes that hold nutrients, water and create soil structure, rebuilding depleted soils to support healthy plant growth and a healthy environment. I know aerobic biosolids will be the best process to deal with sewage sludge/biosolids in Halton Region.
I am looking forward to working with the new Halton Biosolids Management Advisory Committee that is presently being chosen.
Contributor/Opinion: Paul Bousfield 31/01/07 Email me
Water supply for the city of Guelph comes primarily from wells near Arkell just South East of Guelph. By 2000, water supply was tight and Guelph began the process documented in Class Enviromental Assessment for Municipal and Wastewater Projects. The Class EA is a municipally controlled process which includes opportunities for public involvement. In this case that includes Milton and Puslinch. Guelph proposed to add a well and water-taking capacity at Arkell.
Status
In November, 2003 at a public meeting at Brookville, Halton Region staff agreed to do a technical review of the Guelph proposal.
A Region staff report was presented at the Halton Region Planning and Public Works Committee meeting on March 24. A summary of that staff report, and an update from The City of Guelph, were sent by the Region on Feb 19 to those who had registered at the November public meeting.
The Region recommended certain provisions conditions for the Permit To Take Water and it appeared that Guelph was in agreement. Key provisions include: completion of a well survey; monitoring of risk areas; immediate response by Guelph in risk areas; and a Well Interference Committee to review complaints not satisfied by normal process.
On May 20/04, the Township of Puslinch issued a formal objection to the Ministry of the Environment. That objection appears to have been effective because the MOE agreed with the findings and Guelph has been directed to do more study on the effects on the Eramosa River and Blue Springs Creek.
Puslinch Council was feeling vindicated March 2, 2005 after a government agency has validated its finding that Guelph's study to take more water at Arkell Springs is faulty. A layer of rock that Guelph believes protects the acquifer is in fact leaky and that, according to Puslinch Township hydrogeologist Stan Denhoed who reviewed the study over a year ago, is only one of the study's errors.
An email from Ministry of the Environment resource planner Barbara Ryter to Guelph's Water Supply Program Manager Dave Belanger on Feb. 18, 2005 stated there are seven Ground-water-related issues that "are imperative for the city to address at this time…given our uncertainty with the conclusions that have been reached as to potential impacts to the Eramosa River and Blue Springs Creek."
In September 2006, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment signed off on the Environmental Assessment but with conditions that must be met before a Permit To Take Water is allowed. A report was presented to Milton Council on July 16, 2007.
Contributor/Opinion: 16/07/07 Jim Harding Email Me and Gary Ellis Email me
From 1996 to 2001 Milton population, housing units, and average residential tax rates were about flat. Then from somewhere came a decision to grow, and from the lake came a big pipe with the required water.
From the beginning, Milton politicians have assured us that growth would pay for itself. Now Milton taxpayers must find an additional $10.9 million a year for the next 5 years to cover capital cost associated with growth - and this includes nothing for operational cost increases. Milton development charges, by provincial legislation and before discounts, cover only 90% of required infrastructure and developers are exempt from costs of town halls, theatres and parkland acquisition. The April 7, 2004 Draft Development Background Study estimates $146.6 million of capital expenditures due to development over the next 5 years of which $54.4 million (annual $10.88 million) will need to be contributed from "taxpayers and other sources like Mohawk slots or reserves".
Although Ontario population growth was only 1.3% average per year from 1992 to 2002, Milton population grew at an average 14.6% per year from 2001 to 2004 and the rest of Halton grew at 2.3%. From 2004 to 2009 Milton population is expected to grow at an average 8.6% per year while the rest of Halton grows at 1.8% per year.
The number of new dwellings in Milton exceeds those in the much larger Oakville and Burlington from 2002 until 2008 when strong growth begins in Oakville.
And then there is the question of what Milton will be like as it grows from 47,000 to 72,000 in 2009.
Opinion
Growth in Milton appears to be a runaway train and one has to ask who is supposed to be driving. Milton points to GTA growth and Region Best Planning Estimates but how do they explain 15% population growth when Ontario grows at 1.3%? And how can the Region call 15% growth an "estimate" when the rest of Halton is growing at 2.3%? If they are "targets", surely they don't date back to an Ontario Government edict in the 1980's. The present Ontario Government speaks of transferring power from the OMB to municipalities and have a Bill 27 to preserve greenbelt. Who is driving this growth, who is benefiting from it, and who speaks for current residents?
When the slots revenue began about 5 years ago there were to be public discussions on where that money should go. That didn't happen and we still have had no public accounting. Will those accumulated funds, and an ongoing $6 million per year, plus tax increases go to subsidize new development that isn't covered by development charges?
Some expect the built-out Milton to be a disaster. Others point out the benefits of additional parks, libraries, pools, transit, etc. but as far as I know none of these are scheduled for Brookville or Campbellville. Even on the best of assumptions it is doubtful that rural residents will get value for the loss of their share of slots revenue or potential increased taxes.
Now is the time to get some answers on who is driving, who benefits, and what are the costs. Along with an apparent change in provincial attitude, there are opportunities to be heard on Greenbelt Study, Region Official Plan, Region Strategic Plan, Milton Development Charges, Sherwood Survey, Destiny Milton and the Milton Official Plan.
Milton has just released a consultant's report titled Long-Term Fiscal Impact Assessment of Growth. It takes into account increased development charges, an incremental developer fee of $2000 per unit, assumptions on Industrial growth, and use of Slots revenue. And still it concludes that the average increase in Milton taxes between 2004 and 2021 will be 4.7% per year. Yikes!
Meanwhile at the Region, lawyers for developers are lining up to contest large increases in Region development charges. No doubt there will be further tax increase projections from the Region as it struggles to pay for growth-related transportation, water, and sewage costs. We will watch for this second shoe to drop.
Call your Town Councillor, Region Councillor, Mayor Gord Krantz, and/or Region Chair Joyce Savoline.
Contributor/Opinion: 19/05/04 Gary Ellis Email me and Mike Grimwood Email me
Across Canada, it is very clear that rural residents are being marginalized in the political process. The feds talk about billions to cities, the Province about millions to industry, the Region about strong ‘growth’, the Town about urban bicycle trails and transit. The only way to change this is for rural residents to get politically involved.
The MRRA put Guiding Principles on the Milton agenda. On March 22, 2004 the Milton Planning and Administration Committee passed a motion to develop Guiding Principles. Almost a year later, the first set of Guiding Priciples was passed by Milton Council.
MRRA Position:
MRRA believes that Milton Council must become more open in its communication and consultation with the electorate. Development of Guiding Principles similar to those of the Region was a major step forward. Council must now live up to those principles.
Status and Opinion:
Council committed to review the principles after one year. The Town has now asked for public comment on Guiding Principles by Feb. 20/06 - check out the Town website for review of the Principles (Town refers to them as Public Consultation Principles). Comments etc. are to be sent in written form to Karyn Bennett, Deputy Clerk. See the MRRA response. Milton staff will prepare a report for Committee on April 10.
Observed more in their breach, by Council, than in their adherence, guiding principles need strengthening and a real commitment by the Mayor and Council and Town staff. Clarity, timeliness and transparency were certainly wanting in the recent budget discussions - the 2005 presentation looks outstanding compared to the lack of clear information provided for 2006; and 2005 was no great shakes! A big leap backwards here! Respect is certainly a rare commodity, based on the actions and comments of some members of Council, and demeaning of the public role and participants for the sake of expediency seems to be epidemic - witness the 2006 budget discussions, Sherwood Survey development decisions and the town hall expansion process.
It's tantalizing to reflect on the recent demise of the 'long-in-the-tooth' federal Liberals and then consider the tenure and comport of the Mayor and members of council. Guiding principles provide a benchmark of performance and public accountability, as well as a commitment to democracy.
We should not be afraid lest democracy hijack Council practices, and we need to continue to insist on governance which respects, and encourages, full public involvement.
Contributor/Opinion: Jim Harding 26/01/06 Email Me
Previous assessments were reflected market values at January 2005. They were mailed on October 31, 2005 and the average increases in Halton were as follows: Milton 11.73%, Burlington 11.96%, Halton Hills 13.03%, Oakville 16.71%. Within Milton, Ward 1 averaged 11.0% increase; Ward 2 13.2%; Ward 3 10.7%; and Ward 4 12.1%.
New assessments were received in October 2008 and reflect market values at January 2008. A good summary of the process is available on the Region site.
MPAC also has a good website (www.mpac.ca).
It is important to understand that the change in assessment does not directly change your tax bill. The tax bill also depends on tax rates which are determined by Budgets. The tax bill is the sum of tax rate times assessment for Milton plus Region plus Education.
It may be possible to do a reasonable assessment on an urban subdivision property where homes and lots are similar, and there are plenty of sales. Rural properties are unique and the "comparable" properties procedure is not effective. It is worth checking out those comparable properties. An MRRA member provides some useful information regarding farmland assessments.
In 1998 the Province began a program known as GTA Pooling. GTA regional municipalities were to collect municipal tax dollars to send to Toronto to support Toronto's welfare and social programs. The Region has prepared a background report.
Todate, Halton Region taxpayers have contributed $325 million to Toronto's social programs. The budget for 2007 is $41 million or $182 per Halton household.
Contributing Regions have objected on the basis that social programs should not be funded from municipal taxes. It was also noticed that Toronto tax increases have been less than its neighbours. Contributing Regions wanted to end the program and their taxpayers exxpected a return of funds no longer required.
MRRA Position
Any municipal tax dollars that are no longer required for GTA Pooling must be returned to Halton taxpayers.
Status/Opinion
The $41 million is not the Region’s money. Never was. They only collected it for Toronto.
Since Toronto is a major source of votes, senior governments would have to replace those pooling funds for Toronto by increasing our taxes. Halton taxpayers could end up sending $41 million to Toronto by a different route AND giving $41 million extra to the Region.
In January 2007, the Province decreed an end to GTA Pooling with a phase-out over 6 years, beginning in 2007.
On April 18 2007, Region Council approved a motion allowing the municipalities to keep the $6 million of Pooling funds collected by the Region for 2007. Only Councillor Dennison of Burlington was in favour of returning the funds to Halton taxpayers. Councillor Best at least acknowledged that it was taxpayer's money.
Having established the precedent to grab this loose tax money, on July 11, 2007 Region Council agreed to build the 2008 budget on the assumption they would continue to collect the $41 million even though only about $29 million has to be sent to Toronto. The remaining $12 million would be split between the Region and the municipalities - about $52 extra tax per Halton household.
Unless taxpayers can pry this over-taxation loose from municipal politicians, the trend will continue.
On April 28 2008, staff presented guidelines (1.2MB pdf)to the Milton Budget Committee. The MRRA responded in writing. The following was presented on April 28, 2008 as part of the public meeting.
Thanks to Linda Leeds for her ongoing commitment to public involvement and promoting this introduction to the 2009 budget-setting undertaking.
There are some difficulties though - while it’s gratifying to see that process is starting now, it is good news/bad news vis-à-vis transparency and relevancy.
The good news - early public involvement and input - should lead to better understanding and appreciation of Town’s finances and financial affairs.
The bad news - the 2007 audited Annual Report and Provincially-mandated Municipal Performance Measurement data not available; so we are unable to peruse these data and identify and address issues/concerns which arise from them, relevant to the budget process; -only one quarter in fiscal 2008 under the belt so far, hence no substantive information or identifiable trends or issues, which may have arisen from issues with the 2008 budget process, which could be rectified in the 2009 budget process.
Nonetheless, going forward with some suggestions for the 2009 process, but recognizing that they are limited by the bad news:
First: No comprehensive reliable performance measurements is available e.g. performance to Departmental Objectives as presented in the 2008 budget. During the 2008 budget process, Town and Council told me that the Provincially-mandated Municipal Performance Measurement data and trends are inappropriate for use in budget preparation and irrelevant in terms of identifying issues or concerns which should be addressed in the budget process.
If Council is still of this opinion, then staff should be directed to develop appropriate performance measurement criteria for 2009 as part of the budget process, and have relevant and reliable metrics available to the public; this would meet the Destiny Milton goal of improved transparency and accountability.
Council should also be actively encouraging the Province to amend the MPM program so that it has value and relevancy.
Second: A half-year review and assessment of each department’s performance to financial goals and Department Objectives as laid out in the 2008 budget, should be made available to the public in early August 2008, with a public meeting set for early September to discuss variances and corrective actions undertaken as appropriate.
Third: It was gratifying to see FTE staff data presented in the 2008 budget - thank you, Ms. Leeds for initiating this. However, as suggested in my June 2007 submission, I believe that a three year trend in FTE staffing should be given for each Department, along with a three year trend in Operating Expenses per FTE staff and Department-generated revenues per FTE staff. This transparency should be added to the 2009 process.
Fourth: some other of my and others’ May-June 2007 suggestions for the 2008 budget process were not implemented - I will not spend our time going over them now because you have them on record, but I believe that review of all the 2007 budget comments should be undertaken and items actioned appropriately.
Fifth: Within the 2009 budget process, clear and precise metrics for assessing how each Department’s actual performance will be measured with particular respect to the Objective of ‘providing excellent customer service’ should be presented, and, quarterly in 2009, the measurement(s) of performance to this Objective should be made available to the public, who are footing the bill for these services.
Sixth: the urban-rural tax levy differential needs to be brought up to date - the budgets for 2006, 2007 and 2008 clearly show that the rural areas are receiving proportionally fewer benefits for their tax dollars, and differential should be increased in recognition of this.
Seventh: Some months ago, Ms. Leeds had presented information on depreciation/amortization considerations which are to become a part of the Town’s budget considerations. The 2009 budget process should include public open houses (1 or 2) on the impacts of depreciation/amortization and the strategies to deal with these impacts.
Finally, the 2009 budget process needs to include provision for filling each of the offices of the municipal ombudsperson, auditor general and lobbyist registrar. There are no substantive reasons for not filling these important providers of transparency and accountability - the council of the City of Toronto has set a good example in improving its transparency and accountability by establishing these positions - Milton Council needs to follow suit to demonstrate responsible and effective representation for its citizens.
Contributor/opinion Mike Grimwood 29/04/08 Email Me
The annual budget process is probably the single most important item of business for any municipal council. It sets the tax rate that can be a threat to re-election, provides the annual work plan for staff, ensures that tax dollars are well allocated, and can demonstrate to staff that council is in charge.
Many municipalities are forced to be very serious with the budget process to keep tax increases below an acceptable threshold. They must prune staff wish lists and prioritize in order to provide funding for the basic essentials. Budget debates can last for weeks or months.
Milton is not like other municipalities. Milton receives $6 million per year in bonus funding from Mohawk and has a long list of growth-related projects to manage.
Status/Opinion
For years, the annual $6 million from Mohawk has made the Milton budget process quick and easy for council. It has been enough for council to give guidance on the size of a tax increase and select the staff option that provides it. No need to seriously question projects like the Base Line road upgrade, or the magnitude of project spending on new parks. No need to prioritize discretionary projects since there are funds enough to go around while keeping tax increases low.
Some day the extra funding may no longer be enough to prevent large tax increases. That would force more attention on spending proposals and the budget process. In any case, taxpayers deserve responsible treatment of their tax dollars REGARDLESS of the size of tax increases. The MRRA provided suggestions to improve the budget process:
The municipality of Milton has been organized with four wards. Each elects 2 Councillors, plus a Regional Councillor for wards 1 and 3, and for wards 2 and 4. That is a total of 10 Councillors. Wards 2 and 4 have been the "urban" wards. Wards 1 and 3 have been the "rural" wards.
Some would say that, regardless of which ward elected a Councillor, all Councillors represent all of Milton. That is the way that Milton council has operated. Others would expect the Councillors that they elected in their ward to represent primarily their interests. If councillors represented their wards there would currently be 5 councillors representing rural constituents.
MRRA Position
MRRA believes that rural councillors should represent rural constituents. As urban Milton grows there is a risk that rural residents will have even less representation. MRRA will oppose any such proposal believing that representation should remain unchanged since the geographical area will be essentially unchanged and that rural issues will increase with increasing urban population.
Status/Opinion
Milton`s rapid growth is changing the proportion of urban/rural residents. In 2003 there were 29274 eligible voters, about 8700 or 30% were rural. In 2006 there were 39903 eligible voters, still about 8700 rural but now only 22%. Ward 3 remains rural but ward 1 is fast going urban.
The 2003-2006 Council passed a motion on March 28, 2006 whereby the next Council would provide terms of reference for a review of wards for the 2010 election.
Milton growth may also provide increased representation on Region council although candidate Marshall observed " ..it isn't always about the number of people at the table, but rather the quality of representation. '
If rural Milton is to have a meaningful voice on Milton and Region councils, councillors must primarily represent their constituents at Milton and Region councils. And we must work with council to investigate other approaches to retain a rural voice such as Rural Advisory Committees at both local and Region levels.
Public meetings to gather input were held on September 18 and September 25, 2008. The MRRA responded. The background is available on the Town website. Public meetings were held on January 28 and 29 2009 to review the options.
The final recommendation was approved by Milton Council on March 30, 2009. There will be 8 wards with only one rural councillor in rural ward 3.
There are 3 issues remaining to be addressed by council and the MRRA will ensure they are not forgotten:
- Make rural ward 3 permanent as suggested in the ward boundary report.
- Provide a set schedule for ward boundary reviews as suggested in the ward boundary report.
- Create a rural advisory committee or community council as suggested by the MRRA to ensure a rural voice.
Also, we must elect a ward 3 councillor in 2010 who will actually represent rural constituents at council.
On February 7, 2008 the Region issued report MO-11-08 Halton Region Rural Drinking Water Study 2007, Phase 2. This report on the testing of 261 rural Halton wells concludes "...the proportion of wells that tested bacteriologically unsafe was 37%...". To get this shocking result, the Region included samples that had evidence of Coliform which the Province does not classify as "Unsafe to Drink". In fact, 3 to 4% of their 261 household sample would be "Unsafe to Drink by Provincial standards.
When the Health and Social Sevices Committee received this report, they passed a motion to investigate the possibility of making water tests mandatory. Staff were expected to respond in the fall.
MRRA Position
The MRRA is strongly opposed to the concept of mandatory testing of rural wells and has suggested ways to increase voluntary testing.
Status/Opinion
The MRRA made this position known to Chair Carr by email.
On June 11, several MRRA directors met with Region staff on this subject, expressing opposition to mandatory testing and suggesting alternatives.
Region report MO-50-08 came to the Region Health & Social Services Committee on October 21. It recommended against a mandatory well-testing progam and in favour of a voluntary progam. On behalf of the MRRA, a delegation was made to Committee in favour of the report and the voluntary program. Committee unanimously approved the staff report.
The issue went to Region Council on October 29 and the Committee recommendation was passed as follows:
1. That Region Council endorse a voluntary well testing program that would educate, remind, and encourage residents to sample their private well water supplies as set out in report MO-50-08 re. "Feasibility of Mandating Private Well Water Testing in Halton".
2. That staff be directed to work with rural ratepayer groups in implementing the voluntary well water testing program.
Meanwhile, at Committee, Dr. Nosal stated again that 37% of the sample wells were "unsafe for drinking". We need trust for a voluntary program to work and will follow on this point as the program develops.
Contributor/Opinion: Gary Ellis 29/10/08 E-mail Me
