The Right Honourable Bob Bailey Lies About Otter Creek Wind Farm and Water Quality.

Louis Shalako

According to Sarnia-Lambton Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, The Right Honourable Mr. Robert Bailey, he would cancel the Otter Creek wind farm due to groundwater contamination. 

No word on how he would crack down on agricultural runoff, which leads to algae bloom affecting millions.

Letter to the Editor, July 21/16:

“I ran a water treatment company for nearly 25 years. I found it absurd when an article published in the Sarnia Observer had a few disgruntled individuals attempting to tie earthquakes and windmills to turbidity in well water.

Peter Epp then wrote an editorial (Absurdities Abound, 14 July) that appears to be based entirely on this article. He is a wordsmith, not a water well expert. Good editorials are written by good wordsmiths who have done their homework! He totally missed the real problem, which is that poor water wells produce bad water.

A quick call to the local offices of The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Health Unit would have flagged the real issue: water quality.

What I believe I see in the original article tells me that these ‘problem wells’ are likely shallow dug or GUDI wells (Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water). They are known to be problematic. If an earthquake in Quebec causes turbidity, you have a problem! Get your water tested! The health unit will provide you with directions and materials for bacterial testing. It is free.

Water quality can be a real issue in rural areas. Water quality is important. I am saddened when this real issue is diminished by individuals with hidden agendas. The editorial’s headline is correct. It’s absurd to imply that earthquakes or windmills are causing bad water.

I, for one, am tired of the anti-wind energy neo-Luddites’ fear mongering. They accuse windmills of causing what, at times, seems to be half the world’s problems.”

Dean de Jong

Plympton-Wyoming (a largely agricultural area of Lambton County).

The site, outlined in purple.

That part of southwestern Ontario (the Otter Creek site) is low, it's flat, and the water table lies quite close to the surface. It has been extensively deforested and is intensely farmed using backwards technologies. Groundwater problems are the result of terrain, soil type and a hundred and fifty years of bad environmental practices.

In other words, it is the classic GUDI area, i.e., 'groundwater under direct influence' of surface water. What is even more important to understanding the hydro-geology of the area is that it is farm country and staunchly Conservative.

Wind farms have only come in during the last fifteen years, under a Liberal government.

If it had been their own idea, then that of course would be different.

The terrain.

The elevation of Lake St. Clair is 175 metres. The elevation of Chatham, Ontario, is 198 metres, at a distance of roughly twenty kilometres due east of Lake St. Clair. That isn't much of a gradient for runoff to begin with, and such a flat, treeless plain with minimal elevation above lake levels, is already prone to flooding. That is less than ten metres of drop for every kilometre of distance. It's practically indiscernible. Wallaceburg flooded this spring, and it is at risk of flooding virtually every spring.

There are rivers coming down from London and environs, as well as the rather flat Lambton County to the north. So, in periods of extreme rainfall, or heavy snow-melt, much of that water soaks down, rather than draining to the lake. Any sensible mind can see how this would be a major cause of well-water turbidity, considering the heavy agricultural use and lack of forest cover and natural wetlands. There are no hedgerows or windbreaks, familiar from the Delhi and Norfolk area, which, with sandy soil and deforestation in previous centuries, suffered extensive soil loss and had to be rehabilitated at great time and expense.

Interestingly, if farmers have taken up the practice of using all fields, in other words not (just for example) a four-field, three cash-crop and one cover-crop rotation, but in fact planting all fields with cash crops, each and every year, they are taking out an estimated twenty-five percent of fodder or grass cover, which resists soil erosion and holds water closer to the surface (slowing down surface runoff).  It takes up a good rain and turns it into vegetation quite quickly, (mostly in the growing season). The difference between that and corn, is that there is no bare soil exposed, and little in terms of fertilizers and pest control agents to be sucked down into the water table.

In winter, a field of grass will still hold more water, and more topsoil, than a field of plowed dirt. Rain or snow-melt quickly runs off into ditches and tile drains, taking a measurable portion of soil with it—along with all those pesky chemicals.

So, if they're not leaving anything fallow these days—this may be a contributor to the problem. 

Leaving a quarter of available land in clover for a full season of course takes out one quarter of the potential revenue. Not leaving fallow ground is not an advance in farming technique. It may be an advance in revenue generation, in the short term. Long term, it assumes a constant diet of fertilizers and other chemical agents. This is going to affect water quality, not just downstream in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, but also right there in your own wells. 

So, why would Mr. Bailey, who has access to all the facts and a responsibility to know and to comprehend them, make such a bone-headed assertion? 

He wants their votes. He wants yours too, my suggestion is that we don't give it to him.

END

Louis has all kinds of books and stories available from Smashwords.

Thank you for reading.