Comments for Water Canada

Comment on Silencing Science by Avi Lambert

Avi Lambert — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:09:04 +0000

Great post Kerry!

Your discussion of the muzzling of scientific information, and communication more generally, prompts me to raise the idea that information is tied intrinsically to politics and economics. I point this as I find that the muzzling of scientific information under a conservative majority is not so surprising.

In articles such as this one (http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2011/11/21/pm-harper-takes-communications-strategy-to-new-level/28868) one can connect the dots among issues, to find there is a common tenor in how communications issues are managed by the current Harper majority.

I agree also that we must do our best to remove the muzzle.

Comment on A Private (and Public) Matter by Ensor Nicholson

Ensor Nicholson — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:29:56 +0000

Interesting article, however your 3rd paragraph requires correction. In 1997 the City of Moncton, NB entered a 3P design/build/operate agreement for a $25 million Water Treatment Plant. The project was successfully completed in 18 months and has been providing excellent quality water to Moncton and surrounding communities for over 12 years. The city owns the facility and the private partner does a great job operating a plant that delivers safe drinking water to over 100,000 area residents.

Comment on A Private (and Public) Matter by Lynn Perrin BGS MPP

Lynn Perrin BGS MPP — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:36:14 +0000

I am the Abbotsford Spokesperson for Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford. Your article completely ignores the P3 water scheme and subsequent 74.4% NO P3 referendum on Nov. 19, 2011 in Abbotsford B.C. This 74.4% NO was after PPP Canada /Conservative government committed to a $65.7 million “grant” if we voted for a P3. We know 2 + 2=4. Therefore $30 million extra for private operation + $50 million more for private financing + the $36 million loss from former regional partner (who said NO P3) less the $65.7 “grant” (our own tax $$) = minimum of $40 million MORE if we went P3. It was the COMMUNITY who voted NO P3 and it was NOT about the loss of a few jobs. Voters clearly understood – Water for Life Not for Profit!

Comment on How Much Water Do Office Buildings Use? by Meirav Even-Har

Meirav Even-Har — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:55:23 +0000

Hello Ajoy,

The 2010 BOMA BESt Energy and Environmental report analyzed 294 existing office buildings – approximately 65% private and 35% public administration. The 35% sample included mostly federal buildings but with some provincial ‘mix’.

To download the report go to: http://www.bomabest.com and note that a 2011 report is scheduled to be published in the spring. Water and energy performance will once again be reported and analyzed.

Meirav

Comment on Chapter 1 by FRESHWATER RESOURCES: CHAPTER 1 | Rainsoft of Ottawa's Blog

FRESHWATER RESOURCES: CHAPTER 1 | Rainsoft of Ottawa's Blog — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:25:39 +0000

[...] http://watercanada.net/2012/chapter-1/ [...]

Comment on How Much Water Do Office Buildings Use? by Ajoy Bista

Ajoy Bista — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:44:53 +0000

Hi Meirav,

A quick question…What was the sample size of the above analysis and were there any federal government owned/operated buildings included in the study? If yes, please suggest how many.

Thank you.

Ajoy

Comment on Charlottetown Goes Water Friendly by Gary Smiljan

Gary Smiljan — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:28:31 +0000

We’ve heard that type of water conservation message for years here in Northern Ontario by Sudbury’s City Council and now what is the current message? The citizens of Greater Sudbury have not used enough water so water prices need to increase due to the shortfall in revenue, go figure.

Comment on Lake Winnipeg: Canada’s Great Dead Zone by Bob Sandford

Bob Sandford — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:01:30 +0000

As an observer of why there never appears to be any effective action on the Lake Winnipeg problem I am increasingly aware of how the interpretation of science on matters of definition are employed as a rationalization for further study and delay on policy reform. In this regard, the Lake Winnipeg circumstance reminds me of a Monty Python sketch in which two opponents are having a vigorous disagreement over the meaning of life. “The lake is dead. No it isn’t. I tell you, the lake is dead. No it isn’t. Look, the lake is dead. No it isn’t. See, it just moved. At a certain point we are going to have stop examining Lake Winnipeg as a paper lake and trust what we see happening in front of our very eyes. I invite you to visit http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080721173754.htm to determine for yourself what you think the state of the lake is and might be in the future especially if water temperatures continue to rise as is the anticipated trend. If we continue to use every excuse available to us not to act, then nothing will change.

Comment on Book Giveaway: Ethical Water by David Johnson

David Johnson — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 +0000

How should water be allocated? (Market-based, Rights-based, First-In-Line, Use-Prioritized, or Environment-first? Using devolved public participation decision-making or technical centrally-managed experts?)

Comment on Book Giveaway: Ethical Water by John Smith

John Smith — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:19:12 +0000

Does the right to clean and safe drinking water outweigh the cost of providing it?

Will the Canadian government commit to clean and safe drinking water for all citizens?