Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One of the areas I started to explore that we heard about in the first panel was the issue of leaching in certain public facilities that may even be so-called “lead-free”. Do you know if this is a problem in some of the public institutions or buildings inside HRM?

[Carl Yates]

We think there would probably be less impact. A lot of those larger buildings would have cast iron services going into them, so probably the predominant amount of lead would very well come from the older internal plumbing, meaning the lead from the solder, lead from brass fixtures, and lead from fountains. We've seen that some of the old fountains have been very problematic, not just in Dalhousie—and you heard Dr. Gagnon talk about that—but also in City Hall.

The good news is that City Hall replaced all their fountains and have new ones that are clear and clean. They have banned bottled water as a result, so we're very pleased to be able to tell you that. They drink from the tap, but they have taken steps to check their own premises.

Others should do similarly and check their plumbing and their fountains. As Dr. Gagnon also said, there was quite a wave of fountains that came across the border that really were not suitable for installation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You mentioned during your testimony that you've had pretty remarkable success over the years with some of the efforts you've made to replace water lines, based on the research we've heard so much about.

First of all, congratulations on the effort. However, have you identified factors that make it more likely for a private homeowner to take up the offer when you guys say, “We're going to test it for free, and if you replace yours, we'll replace ours”? What factors are motivating them to take that offer up?

[Carl Yates]

There are certainly several. I'll touch on those and then ask our director of water services for Halifax Water to add to that.

Our goal is to break down as many barriers as possible. Cost is one, right up front. People don't necessarily want to make that big investment. Also, there is just inconvenience and knowledge. There is the inconvenience of having to dig up your front lawn, and the knowledge required to arrange for a contractor to come to your doorstep and go through that contractual relationship, not knowing whether you're getting a good deal or not.

What we've done as a utility is pre-clear some of our contractors to be available to customers. We have now named contractors for our customers to contact, and as you said, we will encourage folks to do it once.

We have provided an incentive as well. That's another barrier. We've just been successful through our regulator, Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, at providing 25% of the costs on the private side. We're realizing that the financial piece is still a big piece and we're trying to break those barriers down.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When you contribute to the private cost, do you recoup that over time by increasing the water bill for the homeowner who has used the program?

[Carl Yates]

It is not directed to that homeowner. It is spread across the entire rate base.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay, I'm curious now. It may be different from municipality to municipality, but is it a more effective way to have some sort of a direct subsidy or cost coverage to the homeowner, or is it better to make eligible the replacement of the part of the pipe that the municipality owns? What's the best way to use tax dollars to make this happen?

[Carl Yates]

I'd say both, because it is a joint effort. I want to clearly state that it is a joint effort that needs to happen. We need to do both at the same time. The utility certainly has some funds available—most utilities do, for general service line replacements—but if there is a program that helps serve as a catalyst to get more lines done....

I heard the idea earlier, when we were doing work with our municipalities, of doing the entire street. That is absolutely a very cost-effective way to replace lead service lines. You do them in one fell swoop. You go in and get them all and have something for private homeowners as well, to encourage them at the time, either as a tax credit or through direct funding. Any way we can get at them, we like to do it.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 45 seconds.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I don't think I have enough time to get through the next one. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Monsieur Aubin is next.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here.

My first remarks are for you, Mr. Yates.

You said that the federal government should implement a regulatory framework. During our discussions today and at the last meeting, however, I noticed that the witnesses all believe that they do not have reliable statistics. The federal government could always tell the municipalities to use infrastructure funding to offer a program, but if this specific issue is to be addressed and a program created for that purpose, no responsible government would take on such an important task without understanding its scope.

If an inventory had to be completed in Canada, what would that involve? Would it mean collecting data from the municipalities, the provinces and territories, even if they did not have solid data and it meant starting from scratch to complete the inventory?

My question is also for Mr. Edwards because, in the United States, before they tackle a problem, they complete such an inventory to assess the scope of the problem at hand.

Perhaps Mr. Yates could answer, and then Mr. Edwards.

[Carl Yates]

Inventory is a key issue. It's one of the issues identified by the American Water Works Association and one that we identified ourselves. It will vary, no question, from one municipality or one utility to the next. Some municipalities have great records and some have poor. That is part of the issue.

I think that's one of the key tasks to address initially. We ourselves have a decent indication of what we have on the public side, with very good records. On the private side, it's not as good. However, I should point out that we will take advantage of a program that we're about to do in our municipality. We're upgrading our meters to advanced metering infrastructure, so we'll have the opportunity to be in the basement of every customer's home. We will take that opportunity to try to identify pipe in the basement as at least another identifier that helps us decide if that service needs replacement.

We're also doing research with a lot of research foundations to look at techniques that are not intrusive and can go over the ground to identify the materials of the pipe itself. That has probably the most promise. This is technology that was declassified after.... It's one of the unfortunate aspects of war that techniques used to find materials buried below the ground are associated with improvised explosive devices. Of course, this is an opportunity to turn swords into ploughshares. We can use these technologies to find materials that need to be replaced.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Edwards, would you like to add something?

[Dr. Marc Edwards]

In terms of the inventory in the United States, some utilities have very good records, in which case they are in good shape. The vast majority of the utilities, however, have extremely poor records, so we're left with going into the basements of consumers' homes to see what pipe material is entering the homes. We're also left with digging holes, either with excavators or something called hydro-excavation, whereby we dig down a narrow hole and check out what the pipe material is. That's unfortunately how we'll have to do it—house by house.

Let me very quickly respond that in the States, we find that point-of-use filters are a very good cost-effective interim measure to deal with the lead problem. These filters are only $30 each. They're the same filters you'd buy at Lowe's or Home Depot. As long as they're NSF-certified to remove lead, they will effectively get lead down to low levels only for the water used for cooking or drinking, which is of course where the health threat comes from. Our experience is that point-of-use filters are a very cost-effective measure in some cases.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

From the outset, we have certainly understood the need to look at all water lines, all the way to the owner's tap. Yet an owner might refuse to convert their portion and prefer to run the risks themselves, because they are not part of groups at risk in terms of health, they are too old, they cannot afford it or for some other reason. Yet we all know that, in Canada, there is just one water main. There is not one for drinking water and another for waste water.

Will the water coming out of that residence that is contaminated by lead from the owner's pipes be treated again before flowing back into the river that it came from?

If so, we will endlessly be treating the same problem because certain owners refuse to do their part.

[Carl Yates]

We think there will be some customers who will not want to do their side of the line. There's no question about that, but we think that it's our obligation to work as hard as we can to convince them to do so. A lot of education is necessary as well as a lot of contact with the customers, and over time hopefully the vast majority will go along. As more awareness is raised, I think our opportunities rise, and over time we will get all those lead service lines.

The other thing we mentioned earlier was that there is something to be said for getting something done during real estate transactions. As a matter of fact, I would like to say that it's happening now in Halifax. What I would call the higher-end inspectors, who care about their clients, are identifying lead service lines even though those are not on the checklist. We're starting to see that actually becoming an issue, and it's good to see that happening, because it's easier to take care of that issue when there's money changing hands. If you have to get a mortgage for $275,000, you get one for $280,000 if you have to and get that lead service line replaced, or you put the onus on the seller to make sure they take care of it before the house changes hands. I think that is one of the tactics we should consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Yates.

We go now to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, everybody, for being here.

Mr. Edwards, we've heard from time to time a lot of discussion about Flint, Michigan, and the problems they had there. I caught some information on the fly, and maybe you can confirm it. It was that the primary problem in Flint has been not so much the waterlines but that they went to a different source for their water, water that turned out to be contaminated at source. Is that the case?

[Dr. Marc Edwards]

It's really a combination. They changed their water source, which changed their chemistry, which changed the propensity to leach lead into the water. If they had done that and not had the lead pipes, obviously there would not have been a problem, but because they had that change and they did have the lead pipes, that sleeping menace that people had forgotten about suddenly contaminated the water in some homes to astronomical levels.

It's really a combination of effects. Obviously, if they didn't have the lead pipes, they would not have had the problem.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

As a sidebar question, as aquifers get drawn down or perhaps contaminated from other activities, are we starting to get to a point where communal water systems are not that good an idea?

[Dr. Marc Edwards]

I think that communal waters systems are a very good idea, but we have to deal with the reality that our water sources are changing. For example, as aquifers are drawn down, in the United States we've had to switch to surface water. As in the case of Flint, Michigan, that change in source water has triggered corrosion problems, red water complaints, discoloured water, and in a few cases lead issues.

The other major change we're facing is the use of road salt, which is increasing the chloride level of our surface water supplies. In some cases it's making the waters much more corrosive, and that can happen all of a sudden. On average, in the northeastern United States, the chloride levels of rivers have doubled due to the use of road salt. This is an example of another change; suddenly a water supply that was not corrosive is becoming more corrosive.

I still think it's best to deal with this communally. We need to have better corrosion control, and then match the materials that are in our system to the water.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'm starting to think that we need some advice as to whether Scotch is a good alternative.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Always.