Opinion is mixed on the need for ongoing monitoring at Carroll Pond.
In December, Puslinch councillors requested engineers Gamsby and Mannerow to submit a work plan to address water quality concerns with the Carroll Pond and Lesic-Jassal municipal drain operating under Ministry of Environment Certificate of Approval issued on Nov. 13, 2007.
However as councillors began to discuss that work plan on March 7, councillor Jerry Schmidt questioned the need of ongoing monitoring since there are no significant concerns identified by the sampling that was already in place, and no mandated requirement.
“I would suggest it would behoove us, as council, to cancel this sampling,” he said.
Lever said the report is in response to questions he had when Gamsby and Mannerow representatives were at council.
At the time, he had concerns for specific contaminant levels, which, to him, seemed very high. “What I am concerned with, is that we haven’t got a copy of those results.”
Lever said while he was not on council at the time the project was developed, “my expectation was that the engineering that went into this would have provided a system to provide a grasp of the potential pitfalls.”
He said there was an agreement with St. Marys Cement CBM pit to take on water and there was a request for monitoring for contamination.
“I think that was due diligence on behalf of CBM. What I am concerned is the proposal in this letter that seems that somehow it is the township’s responsibility to do additional engineering to find something that should have been identified the first time around.”
Because of that, he wants to speak directly to the staff at Gamsby and Mannerow to see the actual results. Lever said the report talks about contamination settling out into the sediment.
“But if it is settling out in the sediment, eventually the sediment will need to be addressed.”
He said the scope of the project looks at levels of contamination, but not where it is coming from.
“At some point, somebody is going to have to do that, and correct the problem – if, indeed, it is a problem. I don’t think we are at a point where we can cancel the testing.”
Schmidt said the reports he had read suggest the runoff is typical of runoff from roads.
“If that is the case, I don’t know why we are spending all this money on testing to tell us what we already know,” Schmidt said.
However, Lever said what was in the report presented to council “was not typical” and that was what they were requested to explain.
“In my view, they haven’t explained it. They’ve put in a proposal at a cost for additional testing to try to explain it. I don’t think I’m prepared to pay for their explanation, when they did the original engineering work.”
Councillor Wayne Stokely said there was an additional recommendation for automated readings that would be a substantial difference in costs.
He added, “The overall water quality really hasn’t changed in the past two years.”
Stokely agreed more information is required to direct the consultant to what the municipality is looking for.
“I don’t think we need to escalate the testing, but to maintain it for three more years as the previous council had agreed to.”
He did not go along with the idea of additional testing “unless something significant was found.”
Councillor Susan Fielding agreed with Stokely.
Having been a member of the previous council and making those commitments, Fielding said, “What you have to remember is that this was something totally new to this township at the time. We wanted to err on the side of caution and safety.”
“We still need a longer sampling time before we feel comfortable enough to abandon it all together.”
