Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 17 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S-18, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses from Alberta. Please proceed with your presentations, and then we will be glad to ask you some questions.

Mr. Dave Mikkelsen, Mayor, Town of Chestermere: We are pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to provide input on Bill S-18.

Clean water is an issue close to the hearts of all Canadians, as it should be. Unfortunately, to date there has been insufficient monitoring of fresh water sources, which has resulted in tragedies such as occurred at Walkerton, Ontario, and North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

The Town of Chestermere surrounds Chestermere Lake, a man-made body of water that serves as a balancing reservoir for the Western Irrigation District. Although not presently the potable water source for the town, it could very well be in the future if Calgary's population continues to grow at its present rate and its water reservoirs become inadequate. Having said that, it does currently supply potable water to seven towns and villages downstream, and it is primarily in that regard that we appear before you today.

Chestermere Lake has served another purpose for the past 75 years. It has been a settling pond for storm water outflows from the City of Calgary. We are only a few kilometres to the east of Calgary. We also get outflows from the lands abutting the Bow River and the irrigation canal upstream. Over this period of time, sediment has formed a layer of silt that ranges from one to three metres deep on the lake bottom. This sediment bed contains massive amounts of nitrites, nitrates, phosphates, heavy metal, fecal coliform and many other compounds that are lying on the lakebed and building in volume year after year. Right now it is estimated that it is a 75-year buildup on the bottom of the lake.

It is our fear and our contention that, although they generally fall within acceptable levels for irrigation and recreation, it is simply a matter of time before the levels of these compounds grow beyond acceptable limits. The impact on drinking water is self-evident. It should be noted that it is not unusual following a storm event that fecal coliform and other bacteria exceed health and safety limits. Current federal legislation protects no one from the horrible effects of these and other pathogens. Dredging the lakebed is the only way to truly remove these potentially toxic materials from Chestermere Lake. Once this is done, things must be maintained through more intensive monitoring and enforce ment of environmental guidelines to protect water users from the upstream contamination. Obviously this bill would provide the teeth to facilitate this cleansing process.

Maintaining the watershed is the first step to ensuring our citizens and our future generations are able to enjoy something that many of us have so wrongly taken for granted, and that is clean drinking water.

Now Mr. Jim Webber from the Western Irrigation District will describe that intricate irrigation system that I referred to earlier.

Mr. Jim Webber, General Manager, Western Irrigation District: The irrigation system is rather unique in the farming lifestyle in southern Alberta. Irrigation is present in British Columbia and Alberta, but I think 80 per cent of it falls in southern Alberta. We have 1.3 million acres in 13 registered irrigation districts under provincial legislation.

It is a little distant to see there, but we are District No. 12, the light green one on the top left-hand corner directly adjoining Calgary, and of course the irrigation system links all the communities together.

Four per cent of the land under irrigation produces 20 per cent of Alberta's agricultural production. Alberta has no shortage of freshwater rivers. For 87 per cent of the water in Alberta, the rivers flow north to the Arctic Circle. In southern Alberta, we only have access to 13 per cent of the water, and the majority of the province's population resides there. We can only access 7.5 per cent because, under provincial agreements, half must flow through to Saskatchewan.

Within the irrigation blocks in southern Alberta, we have 50 major urban municipalities taking their water supplies from irrigation canals and reservoirs. Water is for agriculture predomi nantly but also for domestic, municipal, industrial, recreational and wildlife uses. Access to good water quality is essential for rural health, but everyone is downstream from another user.

The Western Irrigation District in particular is a small unit of 87,000 irrigated acres. To the left, just off the map, is the great big urban area of Calgary. I will show you more detail later, but you can see the community of Chestermere is on the left-hand side, which is the very head end. Chestermere Lake is our header tank for operating 1300 kilometres of canals and four water bodies. Strathmore is in the centre of our region. Within our area, we have seven urban communities taking water from our system, and the largest are Chestermere and Strathmore.

The City of Calgary now has a population of 850,000, and the growth rates of this city are now rapid. They project that the million mark will be reached probably within ten years.

The storm water outfalls that take all the water from the rooftops, paving lots and industrial areas are directly connected into the main canal that supplies Chestermere Lake. It has almost become an interceptor.

Our water comes from the Bow River. As you are probably aware, Calgary is a real river city. We have a weir, a diversion system and then a provincially-owned canal takes water from the Bow River to deliver it to Chestermere Lake. That is the start of our whole system. Within that length, 34 storm-water outfalls connect directly into that canal. Due to the sheer scale of that drainage area, in a major rain event in Calgary, it completely dominates canal flow. WID has become a convenient wasteway for urban storm water.

Calgary's development has been quite rapid. When negotiations originally began to accept storm water in 1964, we were just a little area of the red, the area of Forest Lawn. Since then, Calgary on the east side has expanded rapidly. All water runs north to south, to the main canal. Now they are starting to talk about developing further east, closing the gap to Chestermere Lake and the town of Chestermere.

This connection for Chestermere and other downstream users means storm surges, for the sheer capacity that can come down storm drains these days, causing a flood risk for those properties surrounding Chestermere Lake.

The major problem, though, is water quality degradation and sediment deposition. Present in the sediments are very high concentrations of phosphorus that increase the aquatic leaf growth not only in Chestermere Lake, but also throughout our irrigation canal system. That has a major impact on us for most of the summer. Some of the metals that we find in the bottom of Chestermere Lake are listed here, which shows evidence of the industrial connection. The east side of Calgary is mostly industrial. Fortunately, we are not currently over the CCME guidelines on any of these metals, but it is only a matter of time before it becomes a major problem.

All downstream users have high phosphorus and nitrate levels in the water. The increase of weed growth in the canals impedes our ability to deliver water through the system.

We also have periods of high fecal and E.coli risk, usually in the first flush of a rainstorm. As such, there is a depleted recreational opportunity within our system.

Calgary is one big example of urban connections seemingly having no expansion limits. Storm-water inputs appear to be under-regulated. For sewage and those kinds of effluents, huge numbers of regulations will follow. Storm-water regulation seems a little looser. Urban expansion will likely exceed its potable water needs and its waste-water assimilation capacity if it is not curtailed in some way. Who is in charge of protecting the downstream users of a large urban area?

Mr. Dwight Stanford, Town Manager, Town of Strathmore: The town of Strathmore is located 40 kilometres east of Calgary along the Trans-Canada Highway. Our community has been growing very rapidly. Some years it grows by 12 or 13 per cent. Our population is now 7,500. The town of Strathmore has good drinking water and we have had good drinking water for 20 years since we built a good water treatment plant.

A year and a half ago, we signed a contract with EPCOR Water Services in Edmonton to operate and manage our water, waste water, storm water, and a residential irrigation system. This irrigation system takes the water directly from the canal and it is piped to some of the residents so that they can water their gardens and their lawns with it. We contracted these systems out to EPCOR Water Services and we feel confident in their ability to ensure that we have good drinking water.

The Town of Strathmore has a licence with Alberta Environ ment to get a 1,000-acre feed per year from the Bow River. As Mr. Webber mentioned earlier, our water comes from the Bow River through the irrigation head works, down the provincially owned canal to Chestermere Lake. The water then goes through the bottom of Chestermere Lake and goes into the A canal which comes out to Strathmore.

We take our water allotment from the canal and run it through culverts into a large raw-water reservoir. The water is then treated and pumped to two potable reservoirs within the town.

To be more environmentally friendly, we have recently built a large new eco-fluid plant that is the state of the art in waste water treatment. Ours is the first big plant in Canada. There are several small ones in British Columbia. In Europe there are more than 3,000 such plants.

The waste water comes out of the plant into lagoons and then goes through three pivots for putting water on the pasture. We take some of the treated effluent and pump it into the Western Irrigation District canal. It goes down the canal and the farmers downstream use it. This water is diluted in the canal, even though it is of higher quality than the canal water. Our treated effluent from our waste water plant is much better quality than the water you would find in the canal.

To help the environment, we are also commissioning a storm-water study to analyze the best way to handle our storm water. This is becoming a big issue everywhere now so we want to take the initiative. We have hired UMA Engineering to do a study for us. In this study they will look at building more storm ponds and consider building wetlands before our storm water goes all the way to Eagle Lake, two and a half miles southeast of Strathmore.

In addition to Strathmore, other municipalities that use the Western Irrigation District system for drinking water. They are Standard, Gleichen, Rockyford, Cluny, Langdon, and Carseland. Dozens of farmers also use the canal water for drinking purposes.

It is very important that we receive the best water possible down the WID canal. When Chestermere Lake is cleaned up, there will be a better quality of water in the canal, which will help the Strathmore residents.

Over the years, a great deal of storm water has been coming out of Calgary and down the canal into Chestermere Lake. We want to see it cleaned up so that we have better quality water.

In the future, we will need to build a new and larger water treatment plant. The better the quality of water is coming down the canal, the lower the price will be of the new water treatment plant.

We appreciate the opportunity of expressing our opinions to this committee. There is a depleting supply of water. We want the best water possible for our citizens. The clean up of the storm water coming into Chestermere Lake and the dredging of the lake that must take place will help the water quality in Strathmore. I thank you for your time.

Mr. Mikkelsen: In closing, we cannot ignore the impact that our inaction is having on the environment, on our children and on our children's children. We applaud your efforts to maintain acceptable levels of cleanliness for potable water supplies. I trust that, once this bill is passed into law, appropriate steps will be taken to enforce the legislation.

That is one of our issues today. Why are many of the watersheds in such poor shape today? We have always been very enlightened as a society regarding what is required as appropriate legislation but often it is not enforced.

As mentioned earlier, Calgary's ability to continue to supply our municipality with water may be compromised in the future as they continue to grow and develop. This is not only due to Calgary's growth but may also be a result of the dwindling water supplies we saw this year with our very serious drought situation.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to continue to examine any and all issues regarding our precious water supply. We thank you once again for the opportunity to comment to this committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Senator Cochrane: I was looking forward to hearing you. I am interested in the EPCOR contract that you have. Is the new plant that you have established for better quality water an EPCOR project or a town project?

Mr. Stanford: Several years ago, we decided that we needed to build a plant of some type because for many years the sewer effluent from town had been left in our lagoons over the winter and then it was pumped onto fields. As the town has grown, we no longer have enough land to put it on. We had to work out a deal with the WID to put it into the canal.

When we decided to build a plant, we went out for proposals and looked at various options. We first decided on the type of plant we wanted and had it designed. We then asked EPCOR Water Services to build and operate our plant. We also asked them to operate our water system and all our utility type services.

Due to their expertise and large operation, the citizens and I feel more comfortable with the quality of water. They are very thorough in all their analyses.

Senator Cochrane: Could this EPCOR plant be a model for other communities?

Mr. Stanford: Yes. We looked into various types of plants. At that time, our community had a population of about 6,000 and is now 7,500. We wanted a plant large enough for 10,000 people. Many plants of that size cost from $10 million to $19 million. This plant is much cheaper. It is a basic plant that produces very good quality water. There are many municipalities currently looking at this method. In Europe, there are over 3,000 of these plants.

Senator Cochrane: How much do the citizens of Strathmore have to pay for this?

Mr. Stanford: It is a charge on their utilities and our utility costs for water and sewer are similar to those of most other towns. It is working out very well for us.

Senator Cochrane: You have no complaints from the people about the cost of the better quality water they are getting?

Mr. Stanford: Most people have been happy. We did have to raise the utility rate for water and sewer about 20 per cent. Currently the average household pays about $50 per month for water and sewer, which is quite reasonable.

Senator Cochrane: You would recommend EPCOR to other communities?

Mr. Stanford: There are many good companies like EPCOR doing this type of work. We looked at other firms as well.

Mr. Mikkelsen: Strathmore is doing a commendable job of cleaning up their water. I do find that the water in Strathmore is very heavily chlorinated, which is one of the components of water treatment. The dirtier the water is going in, the more intensive treatment is required. You will ultimately reach a point where that sort of plant will not be sufficient, because people will be drinking clorox.

The Chairman: You said that the dirtier the water is the more costly it is to clean up. Is there a rule of thumb you can use? If Calgary does not start to clean up its runoff water, then would the cost of the plant double in a few years?

Mr. Stanford: I am not sure. The cost of treatment will become more. As I said, our water treatment plant is 20 years old. It is still working fine, but in time we will have to replace it. The new part is the sewer treatment. It is state of the art. Our water treatment plant is probably not much better than that of many other communities.

Senator Banks: You said that you have access to 13 per cent of the water that comes your way and that by agreement you must leave half of it for Saskatchewan. Does that mean that only half the water remains when it leaves Alberta and goes into Saskatchewan? Does Saskatchewan use the other half? Is this a water system that ends in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Webber: To clarify, that 13 per cent access is for the whole of southern Alberta, where about 80 per cent of the population of Alberta lives. I do not think many people realize that every water body south of Red Deer is artificially supported by irrigation systems. Of that 13 per cent by volume, much of it goes through in a flood that cannot be accessed, because our canals are certain sizes and are only open for certain times of the year. In reality we are probably getting access to only 6 per cent or less.

That water passes through to the Diefenbaker Dam. Some of it is used for irrigation and hydro power production in Saskatchewan. It then goes on to Manitoba. It is an interprovincial law binding us all.

Senator Banks: Who owns Chestermere Lake?

Mr. Webber: The Western Irrigation District.

Senator Banks: Will you have to pay for the dredging?

Mr. Webber: We are trying hard not to.

Senator Banks: If you own it, then who should pay for it? Who do you anticipate will pay for it?

Mr. Webber: We have been encouraging the province to step up to the plate on this one. We have received a lot of sympathy, but we have received a lot of sympathy for a long time. However, it is getting past that point and they are actually getting down to doing something.

From an irrigation point of view, Chestermere Lake as a water body for storage volume for us is a write-off. It has a very high aesthetic and recreational value to Chestermere, but the potential for a water source in the future is our long-term concern. The city has used it and abused it quite a bit. If the city were running a storm-water system and had storm water ponds within the city, they would have to remove the silt from them every 10 years. No one has touched Chestermere Lake for such a purpose, although they have used it as a storm-water pond effectively and as part of their design. The reality is that they cannot do without it, but other monies have to be spent to treat it correctly and professionally as a storm-water system if that is what they are actually using it for.

Senator Banks: Would it not be reasonable to ask the City of Calgary to contribute?

Mr. Webber: We have asked many times; the last time was in court. The court ordered that the City of Calgary was responsible for the negative effects of their activities on our system. We still have not received any money.

Senator Banks: Have they been found sufficiently responsible that they will need to pay for the redress of those problems?

Mr. Webber: It became more complicated because the actual storm-waters exit into a provincially owned head works canal. We had to sue the province that then made Calgary the third party. We had an agreement signed in 1963 by the city that obliges the city to look after any negative effect for the two outfalls they had at the time. That was the payment. They have not paid a cent since.

Senator Banks: The city is going in that direction; is that correct?

Mr. Webber: The judge found in favour of the original agreement, saying it was still active. The city had been informed and had not acted. We were due compensation. Compensation will include activity like de-silting.

We are talking about tens of millions of dollars, and the city is not expecting to have to pay. The reality has not yet hit them.

Senator Banks: The city was the third party in the action; is that correct?

Mr. Webber: Yes.

Senator Banks: What did the court find about the culpability of the first party in the action?

Mr. Webber: It found that the agreement was still in effect with the city, and it also found that the province had not enforced that agreement which it was obliged to do. Therefore, both are guilty. We assume there is some cost shared between the two parties to provide us with the resources to correct the problem.

Senator Banks: Is there any timeline? Does it appear that anything is beginning to happen?

Mr. Webber: They are still in the court process, and the ruling is now being appealed. We are going through an arbitration process where they will decide which costs are valid. I imagine the lawyers will have fun with this for another six to nine months.

The Chairman: It is similar to the Russian system, where you can win a case, but getting paid is another matter.

Senator Banks: That is true with any judgment. I have one final and slightly different question. Did you say that you are still satisfied with the CCNA guidelines?

Mr. Webber: Yes.

Senator Banks: In examining other guidelines this committee has found that sometimes the guidelines are in question. Have you had a look at the CCNA guidelines? Are you satisfied that they are appropriate?

Mr. Webber: We have had consultants look at them. They also pulled out the Ontario guidelines, which are much more strict. The consultants say that we do not meet those criteria. We are on that borderline.

Senator Banks: The guidelines that we are presently meeting, within which we assume to be safe, are not as strict as guidelines that exist in other parts of the country and, therefore, may not be appropriate as a measurement. Is that true?

Mr. Webber: I would think it would need review. I would support that.

We are also trying to make the point that artificial channels in southern Alberta are just as much a reality in the water system as river systems, but they are also much more concentrated because there is no winter flood or spring flood to flush out the system.

When the city has a storm-water outfall going into that canal, there is nowhere else for it to go. A city like Strathmore has no choice; it is coming their way. That is the only choice.

In the writing of the Fisheries Act, no one contemplated how artificial channels should be treated. We see a similar complica tion here. It can be worked out for large natural lakes or rivers, but they have a completely different feel to the communities that are trapped within our own delivery systems.

Senator Banks: I will close simply with an observation that it is nice to hear that a municipally owned company is being helpful to others.

The Chairman: The Edmonton Power Corporation conceals that it is owned by Edmonton by saying that it is a private enterprise.

Senator Christensen: This is a fascinating exercise that illustrates how complicated our water system is. The irony of our treating our water twice is spending twice as much as we should. If we only had to treat it once after we have used it and returned it into the environment in the state in which we received it, we would eliminate that step where we have to treat it in order to use it.

The Chestermere Lake is an artificial lake. How large is it? What is the diameter and depth?

Ms Heather Davies, Councillor, Town of Chestermere: It is 750 hectares. We have done surface water samples for three years. We are losing depth at Chestermere. Three years ago, on the depth finder on the boat, I was reading getting up to 38 feet to 40 feet. This past summer the greatest depth that I could find was 28 feet. When the water is taken out of that lake into the treatment centre, is it taken from surface or from depth?

Mr. Mikkelsen: It is taken when it goes to the out canal. There is an artificial channel along the bottom of the lake.

Senator Christensen: Does the water go from the canal in the water treatment centre?

Mr. Mikkelsen: That is downstream.

Senator Christensen: They come out of the canal, not out of the lake. I suppose then that it is surface water then you are taking out of the lake.

Mr. Mikkelsen: It flows quickly. There is a full changeover of water in the lake every 11 days. The problem with the issue that Ms Davies just raised is the silt build-up affecting our depth is also increasing the level of contaminants yearly. We are becoming gravely concerned about it.

Strathmore is fortunate because they have the economic wherewithal to treat their water. The other downstream towns and villages do not have the opportunity to treat it as effectively, nor do the farmers that are using the canal water for their drinking water and for their livestock.

Senator Christensen: Does runoff from the agricultural community go into the canals?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Yes.

Senator Christensen: The farmers are drinking that water. What sort of treatment are they using?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Some are not using anything. Some are using sand filters.

Senator Christensen: Has it ever been dredged?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Never.

Senator Christensen: It was built 75 years ago and has never been dredged.

I was looking at some of the chemicals that you listed. I was involved with hazardous waste inquiries for several years. Does Calgary use much salt on the roads?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Yes. They have huge combinations.

Senator Christensen: Where does that salt end up?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Chestermere. Envisage a settling pond at a golf course or residential area. That is what Chestermere has become. It has become a settling pond of huge proportions.

Senator Christensen: Are there many geese on it?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Yes.

Senator Christensen: This is not an isolated case. It is true of our water system across Canada for large and small communities. This is a microcosm of what we are dealing with.

Mr. Mikkelsen: We are very concerned that once Calgary is no longer able to fulfil our water supply needs, we will have to reply on the water from Chestermere Lake directly for our potable water source as well. Chestermere is one of the fastest growing communities in western Canada.

It is frightening to think of the implications downstream for us and for our children. It is more frightening to think of what we will be ingesting with the current levels of everything that is going in there. No one is seemingly willing to take the responsibility to clean it up.

Senator Christensen: You will be ingesting not only the drinking water, but also the crops that you will be eating, which will have had been affected by this water.

The regulations are very complex. We have regulations at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

From the municipality point of view, do you believe that Bill S-18 will help to sort out some of that complexity so that there could be a better response to the clean up of our water?

Mr. Mikkelsen: It is very responsible of you to be looking at it in the context of the watershed, and beginning at the watershed.

As Mr. Webber indicated, the definition of the term "water shed" will have to be clear, because in many people's minds it does not mean an artificial irrigation system. It would certainly have to be included. Yes, it is a huge step. The municipality of Calgary is not taking responsibility for what they are doing to our water supply. The Government of the Province of Alberta is not taking responsibility to force the City of Calgary to clean up their water that is coming into our lake. Somewhere along the line, as much as people think they want minimize federal interference, there comes a time to step up and say that enough is enough and that we have got to start to clean up. It will help to clarify it.

Senator Christensen: Does anyone know if there are any requirements for storm-sewer water to be treated? I am not aware of any. In most municipalities, the storm-sewer water just goes. The storm-sewer water comes from the streets. We use water to wash city streets to get rid of all the gas and rubber from vehicles, the dog dirt and all the other things we clean up. That will end up in the river. You have to treat it.

The Chairman: I checked the Ottawa system because I thought the capital city would have something to treat runoff water, but they do not. Some of the runoff water is crossed over into the sewage water, and that, of course, puts a load on the sewage plant.

Senator Christensen: Runoff water puts a huge load on treatment.

The Chairman: It goes in without treatment, and they have to warn people, after a bad storm, to not use the water.

Mr. Mikkelsen: I almost hate to say this - federal-provincial cooperation. The Province of Alberta is becoming very sensitive to the needs and they are doing some things that have not been done in the past, in an effort to clean up. They have provided increased numbers of enforcement agents in Calgary. They have built a groyne to try to deflect some of the polluted water away from our canal. That is within their limits and scope, but they cannot do any more.

Rather than the federal government intervening and enforcing something, there is a real opportunity to work cooperatively together to try to resolve this.

Senator Christensen: Everything is interconnected. We look at the huge costs of health care; if we could have cleaner water, we would not have as many problems with health. The scale of savings could be quite enormous. Treat water once and reduce health costs. It is difficult to do because everyone likes to have their own little box to consider and likes to forget about the linkages. They are all there.

Senator Spivak: Speaking of linkages, we had the Federation of Municipalities here before us. They have a holistic program for which they are asking the federal government for funding of $5.4 million. One of the things they talked about was land use. It is one thing to talk about dredging a lake; it is another thing when you have a growing community and you are not controlling the land use, not just how it is used but how the buildings are set up and what pollution controls are in place. How does the federation's program impinge on anyone's conscience in these small communities? You are dealing with a whole region. Is there any discussion about a regional plan? Calgary is the biggest element in that region for everything that comes down the pipe; never mind what happened before. We are looking at the future and the future looks pretty grim, unless you attack it from an analytical and holistic basis.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Regarding impact the federation's plan has had on communities, I think Chestermere has taken a leadership role in how we have managed our land and how we are managing our storm-water outfalls. For many years, we have used systems that settle sediments to the bottom before the outflows go into the lake. Our development guidelines are rigorous; we do not allow outfalls into the canal or into the lake without first going through settling ponds. We would like to maintain that level. I believe that we are very responsible.

Senator Spivak: I am listening to what you are saying; however, I am wondering about Calgary.

Mr. Mikkelsen: I would say that Calgary is very irresponsible. They may be doing a good job of maintaining their own, within the context of their own boundaries, but I think the courts have determined that -

Senator Spivak: I will go back to my original question concerning land use. All of the planning is done in small segments and not in a region; however, the effects are regional.

Mr. Mikkelsen: A regional partnership has developed between Calgary and the surrounding communities. It appears to be a round-table discussion format, where Calgary tells the surrounding communities what development will occur.

Senator Spivak: I hear you.

Mr. Mikkelsen: Between Calgary and Chestermere there is a corridor that is becoming industrial. This issue will get worse if we leave it the way it is.

Senator Spivak: To get back to the bill, you are talking about runoff from agriculture and industry. Where is feedlot alley? Is that further south?

Mr. Mikkelsen: It is further south.

Senator Christensen: That does not affect you.

If we had this bill in place, under the Food and Drug Act, how do you envision its impact on the uses to which all of the land is put? If the bill were in place with strong penalties, would it serve to concentrate everyone's mind?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Having an act in place is one thing, but enforcing the act is quite another. Enforcing something of this magnitude will be the big challenge that will face the government. It cannot be done without the cooperation, at a regional or interprovincial level, that you are alluding to. It will have to be a matter of federal delegation to the smaller provincial jurisdictions and municipalities for enforcement.

Calgary had a water-usage quota where they asked people to no longer water lawns. Landscapers were laying sod and were receiving fines of $250 per day for the first few days, and then it went up to $2,000 per day for using this water. They kept using it because it was still more profitable for them to use it than to not use it.

It depends on how severe those penalties are; otherwise they will not care. The penalties will have to cost more than the fix.

Senator Banks: What if they are criminal penalties?

Mr. Mikkelsen: That is a different story.

Senator Spivak: You talked about chlorine to treat water. There are other treatments available - oxygenated treatments for example. There are other new technologies as well. In your experience, are they viable?

Mr. Stanford: We have looked at them. Our plant is 20 years old and we are still getting adequate water of decent quality. When we do build a new plant, we will go to something more high-tech.

Senator Spivak: You mentioned, Mr. Mikkelsen, that you are reaching the limit of chlorine. Chlorine can be very toxic once it reaches certain levels.

Mr. Mikkelsen: I am not suggesting that they have reached their limit, but I am suggesting that the water is horrible to drink. I just do not like the taste of chlorine.

Mr. Stanford: We use some chlorine, but we also use carbon and other processes.

We are fortunate that our water meets all the Canadian standards because of the way we treat it. However, as was mentioned earlier, some of the smaller municipalities downstream have not met the standards and have been boiling water for several months.

Senator Spivak: In Winnipeg, we had a system from Shoal Lake, which the city fathers, in their wisdom long ago, instituted. We had these aqueducts where the gravity moves the water. They were supposed to build another aqueduct, but did not. Now we have these huge lagoons sitting there filled with chlorine and the geese and other things go there. All of that is mixed into this wonderful water from Shoal Lake. Stupidity is rampant.

The Chairman: Mr. Stanford, over the last few weeks, we have heard from people that it would be good if the users were charged the actual cost; instead of having it subsidized. Water would be at the actual cost of being delivered to the consumers. Do you charge people what the water costs, including treatment and everything else?

Mr. Stanford: We include all the costs, and we make some profit on our water. All the costs are covered. Some municipalities provide water under cost and subsidize from taxes, but we maintain it must pay the cost with some leftover for administrative costs.

The Chairman: Senator Grafstein sponsored the bill, so he will get to ask the last questions today.

Senator Grafstein: We heard the witnesses representing national associations of municipalities, and as Senator Spivak says, they think that business as usual with a big cheque from the federal government is the way to solve the problem. Obviously, we do not share that particular view.

I would like to look at your area of service to see if we can examine the costs more carefully. My calculation, based on what you have said, is that you are charging each household $1.70 a day for their water usage, and that includes both the water and the sewage.

Mr. Stanford: That is correct.

Senator Grafstein: The other figure I have is that the average household usage is anywhere from 320 to 360 litres a day. Do you have any idea about what the average usage per household would be for that $1.70 per day?

Mr. Stanford: Yes. People in Strathmore seem to use a little more water than other places. It is usually around 400.

Senator Grafstein: That is within the range. The range is somewhere between 300 and 400. The mean average is 360 litres. If you compare this to the cost of one bottle of water, which is a dollar for a quarter of a litre, this $1.70 is the cheapest buy in the country. I do not think we have exploited the ability to move that price up to improve the quality of the material that people ingest. You have done a very good job in terms of keeping the costs down, and you are still massively competitive with bottled water.

Have you looked at the health costs as a result of bad drinking water in your community? Do you have any access to health costs?

Mr. Mikkelsen: No.

Senator Grafstein: The only thing I could find, Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of this, was material that we received, all anecdotal, about people who suffer specifically in southern Alberta. It is generic, not focused. The costs to the health system based on stomach complaints dealing with bad drinking water are quite horrendous. People cannot quantify that. The farmers will use this water. They and their children will have stomach problems. They will be in to the doctor, which increases the cost of the health system. One thing we still do not have to help us analyze this problem, and Senator Christensen alluded to this, is the entire cost of bad drinking water. All we have is anecdotal evidence. In southern Alberta, there were a number of serious health scares, particularly in the farming communities. Is there any way for you to gather that information? Health Canada does not collect it. The only way I can get it is by going to the United States figures and then extrapolating their figures on a percentage basis and bringing it back to Canada.

Mr. Mikkelsen: We have a liaison relationship with Calgary Regional Health Authority, and this is something that can be put on the agenda.

Senator Grafstein: Is this something you could find for us? I think it would be very helpful for the citizens who are concerned about this to know that it is zero-sum spending. You have to look at the total cost, the cost of clean drinking water and the cost of health in the event you do not have good drinking water. If you could gather any of that for us, it would be very useful. Then we will have a model of the total costs in the community. I suspect that those costs are quite horrendous.

Senator Banks: The answer to that question from Chestermere would be different because they are served by a main that comes out from Calgary; so it is City of Calgary water they now drink. The use of the water we are discussing being used as drinking water in Chestermere is in the future, whereas Strathmore has precisely the problem are you talking about.

Senator Grafstein: I understand. I think you understand what we are trying to get at here. I think we are trying to present it to the citizens of Canada, and there is only one taxpayer, each citizen. We are trying to look at it from a total position to look at the total costs.

I welcome your support for this bill because I think you have made the case for us. We have heard it over and over again. What we have here is not responsibility but lack of responsibility. I am very sympathetic to your problems with respect to both the City of Calgary and the province. I hope we will have the Minister of Health from the province of Alberta here, so that we can look at it from a provincial position.

You have made the argument for us again that, absent clear responsibility, there is no responsibility. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Yes.

Senator Grafstein: Therefore, I assume you are reluctantly saying that even if we need a strong federal hand, that does not in any way remove responsibility at the city level, the urban level, the district level, or the provincial level. A stronger hand of consistency across the country with strong research and strong enforcement will crack the nut of this problem. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Mikkelsen: Yes. Children do not know anything about municipal, provincial or federal jurisdiction.

Senator Grafstein: At the end of the day, they want clean drinking water.

Mr. Mikkelsen: Exactly.

The Chairman: I guess the letter has not hit your desk yet. It hit mine yesterday. The Province of Alberta is not coming.

Senator Grafstein: This is exactly the frustration that these witnesses have. You have summed up the frustration of these witnesses. They come here. They have a legal case. They have made the case. They have shown enlightened leadership. They know what their responsibility is. They take their responsibility seriously. They have increased the cost. They have done everything within their power to move this issue forward, yet they are stultified by their neighbours and the province.

It is my view, and I do not know if this is shared by the witnesses, that this is a clear and present danger. We do not use our subpoenas lightly, but if we can demonstrate, and I believe we are on our way to doing this, that there is a clear and present danger to public health across the country, we do have the power to subpoena senior officials in any region of the country to come forward and give their evidence. We are not asking for anything else.

The Chairman: Thank you. We will be having a meeting next Tuesday and we will discuss the bill and where we will go on from there.

I thank you for coming out. You gave a first class presentation, and I am proud of you.

Mr. Mikkelsen: Thank you for the opportunity.

Ms Davies: Mr. Chairman, can I make one correction, please? I found the size of Chestermere Lake. It is 261 hectares, 750 acres. I just wanted to make sure I had the right size.

The Chairman: The committee adjourned.