ERICKSON WATER USERS SOCIETY INFORMATION SHEET, 15 MAY 2000

The following material consists of a very concise (a lot left out) chronology of events occurring after an order was given to the Erickson Improvement District (EID) to disinfect (chlorinate) our water at source. However, the struggle can be traced back to 1992, when the government made the decision to allow logging in protected watersheds. To off-set probable concerns about the resulting diminished purity of affected drinking water, the Health Act and Water Regulations had been ammended to require that all drinking water obtained from surface water sources be disinfected. That, then, led eventually to the requirement to log our watershed area and to disinfect our water!

1. February 11, 1998: An order is issued by Dr. Arsenault of East Kootenay Community Health Services Society (EKCHSS) to disinfect the EID's water supply. The order stipulates that the EID could not make use of "point-of-use" technology (generally, about the same as "point-of-entry," with the acronym, "POE"). The EID recieves the order on 24 February and files an official appeal, but it is accidently sent to the wrong office on the last allowable day for such an appeal to be considered, and is therefore not considered. (Later, the Health authorities claim that the EID never appealed the order.)
   
   

2. June 26, 1998: EKCHSS (Dr. Corrigal) advises EID that any plan for disinfection must include residual chlorine.
   
   

3. August 4, 1998: EID (Mr. Masuch) requests approval from the EKCHSS to proceed with an engineered preliminary proposal (already underway) for a POE system and offers a submission deadline of 30 September 1998.
   
   
4. August 7, 1998: EKCHSS (Dr. Larder) flatly turns down the EID request to proceed with a POE proposal and again states that the EID "cannot make use of point-of-use treatment technology."
   
   
5. September 22, 1998: EID holds a ratepayer meeting to approve chlorination. Ratepayers overwhelmingly reject chlorine treatment while approving the installation of POE systems.
   
   
6. October 22, 1998: 475 Erickson households return surveys registering their disapproval of chlorine and approving the use of the POE system.
   
   
7. October 26, 1998: The EID and the Erickson Water Users meet at the Health Unit with our MLA to explain the situation and solicit his help to find a solution. A crowd of over 150 demonstrators offers support.
   
   
8. October 27, 1998: Municipal Affairs advises the EID that action against the EID will be taken if plans for chlorination are not submitted by 30 October 1998.
   
   
9. October 30, 1998: Under duress, the EID submits plans for a chlorination (MIOX) system to the EKCHSS.
   
   
10. November 27, 1998: A Freedom of Information request reveals that POE systems have been supplying safe drinking water to District schools since 1992 with the approval of EKCHSS officials. Water testing is infrequent and seemingly sporatic, occurring an average of less than 7 times per year, with one school tested less than once per year. (Tests were all within water standards.)
    
    
11. December 1, 1998: In a letter to Ken Auld, a member of Erickson Water Users, EKCHSS (Dr. Larder) now indicates that "fair, factual review and consideration will be given to any engineering proposal for disinfection submitted by the EID," and states that the proposal must be signed by an engineer and address concerns raised by the EKCHSS in a letter written the previous year (30 September 1997).
    
    
12. December 3, 1998: A letter from our MLA, Corky Evans, states:
    
    a) A chlorine residual is not required under the Health Act to disinfect water.
    
    b) Any disinfection that produces safe drinking water qualifies as disinfection.
    
    c) The EKCHSS is willing to consider any water treatment proposal from the EID.
    
    d) Our MLA has requested a 45-to-60-day extension of the deadline.
    
    
13. December 9, 1998: In reply to a letter from Don Low (District Agrologist), Dr. Colin McKenzie (Research Agrologist) states that in his opinion, MIOX chlorination will lead to sodium accumulations in the soil which will cause small reductions in yield of sensitive crops (cherries, plums, rasberries). (Every 1% reduction of yield of cherries is a net loss of $80,000 of crop.)
    
    
14. December 14, 1998: The EKCHSS (Dr. Larder) grants an extension to 15 February 1999 to allow the EID to submit an engineering proposal for a POE system.
    
    
15. December 17, 1998: The EKCHSS (Dr. Larder) reaffirms the extension of the deadline but now requires that the EID submit construction plans and that these plans must now conform to a different set of guidelines (Ove Hals):
    
    a) Treatment Station buildings must be constructed.
    
    b) All (including irrigation) water must be treated.
    
    c) Water must be tested four times a month at each POE point at EID expense.
    
    
16. January 11, 1999: The EID requests an extension of 2 weeks to allow the engineer time to complete the preliminary study for the POE system.
    
    
17. February 1, 1999: The EKCHSS denies the 2-week extension on the grounds that they feel it is not justified, and that any extension would "prolong the health risks associated with this system." The process that was halted on 14 December 1998 will re-start on 15 February 1999.
    
    
18. February 25, 1999: A ratepayers meeting of the EID is held at the Creston Recreation Centre. 186 ratepayers attend to hear a report that implies that the only financially feasable allowable option for water treatment is a gas chlorination plant. Other alternatives, including the POE one which has been made financially impossible by unnecessary roadblocks set up by Health, are all given impossibly high cost estimates by Stu Mould, the engineer hired by the EID (unfortunately, also a close associate of the Health authorities). There is no general agreement on any of the options after a long and acrimonious debate from the floor.
    
    
19. April 13, 1999: The Medical Health Officer of EKCHSS writes to Rob Rounds of Municipal Affairs, that unless the EID begins chlorinating their water supply (using a liquid chlorine temporary system) by 1 May 1999, as scheduled, he will begin legal action against the EID.
    
    
20. April 16, 1999 The Erickson Water Users incorporate officially as a non-profit society, and become the Erickson Water Users Society, listing their mission as the protection of the quality and quantity of the Erickson water supply. As such, with a lawyer provided by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, they initiate a judicial review against the Medical Health Officer of EKCHSS.
    
    
21. April 29, 1999: A roadblock of the EID water intake at Arrow Creek to prevent the arrrival of chlorination supplies is initiated by members of the Water Action Group (WAG), supported by 200 local volunteers. This roadblock continues for 55 days, until the court case makes it unnecessary.
    
    
22. April 30, 1999: The Supreme Court judicial review gets a preliminary hearing in Nelson with a request by EWUS to put the order to chlorinate on hold until the final resolution of the judicial review. The EID is also represented by a lawyer. The MHO's lawyer counters with a request to quash the judicial review. Justice Mc Ewan grants neither request and sets the date for a hearing of the judical review for 22 June in Nelson. The roadblock continues.
    
    
23. June 22, 1999: The judicial review gets underway in Nelson, with Justice Melnick from the court in Cranbrook replacing Justice McEwan. The lawyer for the MHO asks for, and is granted, an adjournment. Justice Melnick agrees to a new court date of 20 July in Cranbrook. He also agrees to allow Ralph Moore to represent WAG in court as an intervenor in the judicial review. The judge agrees to put the chlorination order "on hold" until the final resolution in court, and a court date of 20 July is agreed by all parties. The blockade becomes unnecessary.
    
    
24. July 19, 1999: Just as he is leaving the office in Vancouver to catch a plane to Cranbrook, the lawyer for EWUS receives a 90-page addition to the material to be submitted at the judicial review the next day by the MHO.
    
    
25. July 20, 1999: Because of the lack of time to prepare for the additional material submitted by the MHO at the last minute, EWUS asks for an adjournment of the judicial review. Justice Melnick calls a break in the procedings and asks the four involved parties to meet to talk about resolving the matter out of court if possible. When the four parties agree to negotiate out of court, Justice Melnick adjourns the judicial review to 9 November, with advice to the four parties that an out-of-court settlement would be much better than going back to court again. He also agrees to keep the chlorination order on hold ("status quo") until the case is finally resolved.
    
    
26. August 11, 1999: Corky Evans, MLA and Minister of Agriculture, arranges a meeting among representatives of EWUS, WAG, EID, himself, and officials from MOH and Municipal Affairs. Each representative is allowed two questions (no comments) only, and it seems quite evident by the end of the meeting that it has been a public relations effort, especially after an information pamphlet is later distributed, giving a highly slanted version of what happened at the meeting.
    
    
27. September 4, 1999--15 February 2000: Initial refusals by the MHO to meet with all three other parties results in an agreement by teleconference among the lawyers and the judge in October for another posponement of the judicial review to 15 February 2000. Finally, the MHO agrees to an all-party meeting at the EKCHSS offices in Cranbrook to be held on 16 February. The judicial review is postponed indefinitely.
    
    
28. February 16, 2000: The meeting of all four parties (EID, WAG, EWUS, and the MHO) and their lawyers takes place in Cranbrook, as scheduled. There is an agreement reached to work together on both a short-term solution and a long-term solution to the issue of Erickson water treatment. There is an agreement that both the order to chlorinate and the judicial review will be "on hold" until a final agreement satisfactory to all is reached, when both will become irrelevant, or until it is clear that there is a real impasse which cannot be solved, when EWUS will re-activate the judicial review.
    
    
29. Situation on 15 May 2000: It appears that an agreement to essentially improve the boil-order program and to possibly provide POE systems to commercial establishment dealing with the traveling public could soon complete the short-term negotiations, which have been conducted so far by letter. However, another 4-party meeting may be called to conclude this part of the negotiations. The longer-term situation may be on-going for some time. Federal and Provincial infrastructure funding (so far denied to the EID) may become crucial to a satisfactory long-term treatment plan.
    

The greatest threat now may be the feeling of complacence generated by our long success in keeping chlorine out of Erickson water. We still have a long way to go before we can really afford to "let it go." The fact that the MHO has been agreeing to negotiate with us gives some reason to believe that the will of the vast majority of Erickson water users for water which is chlorine-free is beginning to be respected. But anything could still happen, especially if it appears that our determination has diminished.

Further note, 27 January, 2001:

A few days after the above rather optimistic note, the Walkerton outbreak became public, and the EKCHSS, led by Larder, went on a media blitz, augmented by threatening phone calls and letters to the EID from Dr. Corrigal. A request to Dr. Larder for a meeting of all four parties to finalize the short-term agreements and discuss the direction of the longer-term final solution was met with a request from Bob Macquisten, Larder's lawyer, for a meeting in September.

After much discussion as to an available date, a teleconference of all four parties was arranged in October 2000. A frank and open conference ensued, which seemed promising, but Dr. Larder soon after stated to the local press that it had accomplished nothing.

A month later, after more media attacks, Dr. Larder requested that the government dissolve the EID and appoint a receiver to run the District.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs then wrote to the EID, giving them a deadline of 31 December to come up with a suitable plan for water treatment. The EID sent in a letter on 21 December, outling their plan and asking for a meeting with the Minister. The meeting took place on 9 January 2001, and on 10 January the Minister announced that he was appointing a receiver to run the district beccause of lack of action by the EID.

On 13 January there was a meeting of 200 concerned citizens who offered support for the trustees and affirmed their opposition to chlorination.

On 15 January the receiver, David Wilson, appeared, and was met be 100 local citizens who would not let him enter the EID office, but allowed him to speak to them outside. That evening, the receiver met with representatives of WAG and EWUS, as well as the EID trustees and Secretary/Treasurer, who gave their opinions regarding the situation.

The next move seems to be in the hands of the receiver, and in the meanwhile, a national media battle is taking place, initiated by Dr. Larder, and responded to by the folks in Erickson.