The document discusses the ecological and geological significance of the Waterloo Moraine, highlighting threats from industrial activities, waste pollution, and regional growth pressures. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive protection policies to preserve water resources and the integrity of the Grand River, as current provincial policies fall short of addressing environmental and socio-economic impacts. Additionally, it suggests potential solutions such as alternative waste management practices and calls for more stringent regulations on aggregate extraction.

1. Waterloo Moraine,Growth Pressures &
Gravel Risks
By Louisette Lanteigne
butterflybluelu@rogers.com

2. Federal Challenges

Fish are cross jurisdictional = Federal Fisheries Act

Water is cross jurisdictional = No Water Act
WHY NOT?

3. Provincial Challenges

Provinces control aggregate and fossil fuel extraction.

Aggregates and fossil fuels = Provincial $

Provincial Ministry of Transportation is largest
purchaser of aggregate materials for road repair.

The closer to the source, the cheaper.

4. Water + Aggregates = Aquifers

6. Waterloo Moraine's Complex Geology

Along coastal areas,
geological composition is
relatively consistent and
“predictable”.

The Waterloo Moraine is
located at the intersection
of multiple glacial lobes.

The geology is very
complex and less
predictable.

7. Cross Section of Waterloo Moraine

8. Why protect the Waterloo Moraine?

This system of glacial formed aggregates gathers
municipal water for our region and communities
downstream.

It has been filtering, transporting, storing water and
offsetting flood risk for 15,000 years for free!

The sediment distribution controls flow and flow rates to
our fisheries, wells systems, the Grand River & Lake Erie.

Water volumes are need to dilute contamination issues
and to keep wells running.

Grand River supports the same Gross National Revenue
as Nova Scotia and contains 51% of Canada's fish species
It is a Natural Heritage River.

9. The Waterloo Moraine
Yellow = 80% of the water

10. Development Encroaching!

11. Road Salt Risk

12. Source Water Protection Map: ROPP

13. Gravel Pits encroaching!

14. Contamination Issues

Effluent: 29 waste water plants drain effluent into the Grand
River

Animal wastes: 290,000 cows in the Grand River Watershed
produce waste = five million people.

Leaky Landfills: The Greenbrook well contaminated by 1,4
dioxane, Middleton Wells in Cambridge at risk too. Waterloo's
Landfill is leaking vinyl chloride.

Industrial waste: Elmira had contamination of NDMA
(nitrosodimethylamine) from Unroyal/Chemtura. Elmira lost it's
groundwater supply.

In Cambridge, North Star was sued for trichloroethylene (TCE)
contamination.

15. Opportunities to improve
-Composting toilets can conserve water & reduce
wastes in waterways. Wastes are reduced to 2% of
it's mass in 5 years and end product safe for
landscaping.
-Biofuel recovery from sewage and farm wastes can
replace gas from fracking to heat homes and run cars
-creation of aggregate materials from sewage and farm
wastes reduce dependency on gravel extraction for
roads and construction materials
-Biochemical in-situ remediation of contaminates
including TCE is available. Natural enzymes “eat”
toxins on site.

16. Challenges in Protecting it

Provincial Growth Targets may exceed carrying capacity of the Grand
River and deplete the moraine.

Gravel projects place the moraine and Grand River at risk.

Today's policies cannot be grandfathered so older plans approved
years back don't have to comply to today's laws. They pose a risk.

We don't know how much water we have. Our knowledge of ground
water volumes is limited to pre-development studies.

Some consulting firms make money re mediating the situations they
create. There is money in destruction for them but heavy costs to
taxpayers.

17. Challenges cont.

The MNR does not recognize municipal policies
so municipally protected lands (like the ESL) are
still at risk for aggregate extraction.

The MOE reviewed our request for a Waterloo
Moraine Act but the scope excluded socio-
economic, health and long term sustainability
issues as well as down stream impacts.

18. Challenges cont.
- The review lacked regard to the last five years
worth of source water protection legislation.
- The MOE report did not assess whether the
ecological capacity of the moraines can
realistically accommodate the projected growth in
the region.
- To protect the system, cross jurisdictional and
Federal water policies are needed.

19. Ontario Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario 2009/2010 Annual Report

If the principles of watershed-based planning are
applied, and the environmental and socio-economic
context of the moraines are examined to assess the
cumulative effects of development, the ECO believes that
the current provincial policies do not adequately
protect the ecological and hydrogeological integrity of
moraines.

Watersheds should be a key unit within land use
planning in which to frame decision-making.

20. ECO cont.

The population projections for Growth Plan communities
were established before the future water and wastewater
infrastructure was identified, and their associated costs
and environment impacts, were assessed.

This clearly indicates that provincial policies, such as the
Growth Plan, favor economic development over
sustainable planning processes.

21. ECO cont.

Not only does the Growth Plan fail to require that population
allocations be adjusted for communities with watersheds close
to or already at carrying capacity, it favors large-scale
infrastructure projects to overcome natural limits.

Waterloo is proposing to address any future water shortages
by constructing a pipe to Lake Erie to pump water in and out of
the city. Not only do infrastructure projects like these override
natural ecological carrying capacity, they are also extremely
costly and energy intensive, and as a sewage and water
systems, ("infrastructure") they are exempt from natural heritage
protections in the PPS and Greenbelt Plan despite their
potential for significant environmental effects.

22. ECO's recommendation:
The ECO recommends that the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing amend the Provincial Policy
Statement to require that long term ecological
function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems
are maintained.
http://www.eco.on.ca

23. Lake Erie Pipeline
- Cost: $1.2 billion (2008)
- no treatment or
transportation costs
estimates
- Does not include cost
to upgrade intake
facilities.
- Water delivered uphill
- The Grand River would
be “infrastructure” and
lose heritage status.

24. Lake Erie:Under Stress
Toxic Algae Issues
Growing “Dead Zone”
Declining water volumes
Contamination issues
Climate Change
Zebra Mussel blocks intake
Invasive species
Canadian and US water
taking
Bulk Water Shipments

25. Toxic Blue Green Algae seen from space.

26. International Joint Commission
biennial report on the state of the Great Lakes
Calling Lake Erie the "poster child" for eutrophication, the
commission's U.S. co-chair, Lana Pollack, said much of
the lake is back to being coated with slimy green algal
blooms in the summer, as it was in the 1960s and early
'70s.
"They said, 'Well, we have this one fixed.' Well, we don't have this one fixed," she said.
March 9, 2011 CBC NEWS
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2011/03/09/tech-ijc-great-lakes.html

27. IJC: full report page 33
It is clear that human and ecosystem health
in the Great Lakes basin cannot be
protected without protecting ground-water
resources.
http://www.ijc.org/rel/news/2011/110308_e.htm

28. TAKE ACTION!
-Source Water
Protection Act must
include Quarries as
a risk
-Environmental
Assessments for
Quarries in Ontario

29. Mandate test times and methods

30. Conserve Aggregates

31. Protect the function of Aggregates
Aggregates = Water Supplies