By Doug Draper
A councillor for Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario has called on other municipalities in the region, and provincial and federal governments to demand a moratorium on flushing chemically contaminated “fracking” fluids through the Niagara Falls, NY. wastewater treatment plant to the Niagara River.
Niagara-on-the-Lake councillor Jamie King
The resolution, tabled by Niagara-on-the-Lake councillor Jamie King this October 31 and supported unanimously by the town’s council, also calls for a stop to any discharge of this waste to the Niagara River until there is a “robust public discussion…with full consideration of the human and environmental impacts.”
If you are wondering what the resolution means, don’t feel bad because there has been a dearth of coverage in the mainstream media about this plan to discharge chemically laced water from fracking operations in to the lower great Lakes. Twenty or 30 years ago, such a scheme would have made front-page headlines in newspapers from here to Toronto. But that was then and this is now.
What is happening now is that there are plans afoot to discharge large columns of water contaminated with a cocktail of mostly unknown chemicals through the Niagara Falls, N.Y. wastewater treatment plan to the Niagara River and onward to Lake Ontario.
This contaminated water would be trucked in from a number of places across the northeastern United States where petro-chemical companies like Exxon and Shell are using a process called “hydraulic fracturing” – more commonly known as “fracking” – to drill down deep below ground, in to layers of shale rock, and free up natural gas for extraction using large quantities of chemically treated water. There are many out there who view “fracking” as a key to our energy future in terms of pumping up what could be hundreds of years worth of natural gas for consumer use.
Yet there are questions about the possible chemical poisoning of underground aquifers in the vicinity of these operations and there is also the question of what to do with the spent water used in these operations – water laced with literally dozens of chemicals we know little or nothing about in terms of their composition and toxicity.
Niagara Falls, N.Y. believes it may have the answer to the disposal question by offering petroleum companies its wastewater plant for treating and discharging the water to the Niagara River near the brink of the American and Horseshoe Falls. Officials in this city have said that their plant – one of the few municipal wastewater facilities of its kind on the continent that is equipped with carbon beds for filtering out chemicals – has the capacity to deal with this waste safely. One of the reasons it has the capacity is that so much of the chemical industry that used this plant for its effluent in previous decades has wound down or gone out of business completely, so the city is using for new customers to cover the cost of operating the plant.
It is bloody sad when a municipality – in this case a cross-border neighbour, Niagara Falls N.Y. – has to resort to petro companies trucking in tankers of contaminated water to keep its local wastewater facilities in business. Yet that is a side issue compared to what impact this activity could have on the Niagara River and Lake Ontario, and the life these two great freshwater bodies support.
While American agencies are reviewing this plan, governments on the Canadian side of the border should take heed of King and his fellow councillors’ call for a moratorium on this activity until a full public review on the environmental impacts is completed.
Our governments should also being joining member of U.S. Congress and that countries Environmental Protection Agencies in demanding to know what chemicals companies like Exxon and Halliburton are using in these fracking waters before any of them are allowed to be released to the environment. Believe it or not, many of these chemicals remain a mystery, making it hard for government agencies to test for them in our environment, let alone determine what impact they may be having on wildlife and human health.
Going back at least to the Love Canal days, residents on both sides of the border have been through quite a lot with the migration of deadly chemical substances to our shared Niagara River and Lake Ontario waters. Countless hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent reducing the flow of these poisons to fresh waters many millions of Canadians and Americans depend on for healthy lives.
Other citizen groups like the Council of Canadians and Great Lakes United have already warned about the potential dangers of this plan to flush fracking contaminants in to the Niagara River, but we haven’t heard much of a response from government.
Hopefully the resolution from Jamie King and the Niagara-on-the-Lake council for a moratorium on discharging these chemically laced fracking fluids in our shared waters will be heeded until a thorough study is done on the environmental impacts.
(We welcome you to share your views on this post below. Remember that we only post comments by people willing to share their real first and last names.)
Niagara At Large 
What a wonderful , but grim reminder of the outstanding work of the late Margherita Howe to warn one and all- quite vociferously and intelligently – of the massive chemical pollution from the dumps on the US side of the Niagara River river many years ago, for which she rightly received the Order of Canada. Jamie King is to be highly commended for alerting us to this most recent attempt by industry to ‘dump’ on our treasured internationally shared river . Kudos to him and to the Niagara-on-the-Lake council for passing this precautionary motion.
LikeLike
It is important to stop fracking. Canada should follow France’s example and ban this threat to the safety of our waters. These toxic by-products of fracking could undermine the good work of restoring the Niagara River’s water quality.
LikeLike
It is inconceivable that drilling companies would think of dumping excess fracking fluids into the Niagara River. These fluids should be transported to a hazardous waste disposal facility not dumped into the Niagara River. From what I understand such fluids can contain benzene, ethyl benzene ,diesel fuel, naphthalene, etc. I have also read that 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of fracking fluid are used for a single well. The thought of dumping these contaminants into the Niagara River is horrifying. This would be a huge threat to humans, wildlife and the environment
LikeLike
To be fair, no one proposes to dump fracking fluid Directly into the Niagara River – it will be dumped into the City of Niagara Falls NY’s waste water treatment plant … hopefully to be properly treated, so that the final products will be pure water, and recovered chemicals for use elsewhere.
The problem – that very NFNY plant Failed very soon after it opened 30+ years ago. Does anyone know if it was ever repaired? Is the State of New York checking whether it can remove All or Any of the fracking chemicals?
Is this a wonderful political smokescreen … or a wonderful solution to clean up fracking chemicals?
LikeLike
I and my wife Connie, was on the Queenston/Lewiston bridge along with Operation Cleans, Margarita Howe , we tossed a symbolic wreath lamenting the death of our Niagara River, sadly very little has been done since the Love Canal exposure in the press,the pressure by Lois Gibbs to evacuate that toxic area , Mrs Gibbs relocated to Virginia along with her children., many protocols have been signed on the Rainbow bridge, the Obama Administration has spent a lot of money on cleaning up the harbours of Toledo , and Cleveland Ohio, Buffalo is separating it’s storm drains, this will be a long and costly process, much time was lost under the Republican Administration, when very little money was spent on the Great Lakes.Obama who lived in Chicago knows about the Lakes, and how important a clean water source, it should be., this idea of processing fracking fluids may not be the money maker the City of Niagara Falls NY thinks it is, instead of a gift horse ,it could be a nightmare.
LikeLike
Without full disclosure of the types of chemicals used by the oil and gas companies, how can Niagara Falls NY even begin to treat the contaminated water when they don’t even know what to treat? Even if they can clear up the chemical contaminants, they can’t clear up the inherent radiation in fracking waste water. The waste water should be treated as hazardous radio-active waste. Jamie King is to be commended for bringing this to the attention of local governments.
LikeLike
@Gracia. I attended Monday’s meeting of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Council in order to witness Jamie King bring forward his motion. It was heartening and gratifying to see one councillor after another, as well as the Mayor, thank their colleague for bringing this important issue to their attention. More than one spoke of the legacy of Margherita Howes, whose work was an inspiration for Jamie King.
Mr. King is to be commended for the work he has done to research the dangers of hydraulic fracking, in general, and the proposal to treat the waste-water from this process in Niagara Falls, NY, in particular. Let us hope that this resolution will be supported by other Niagara municipalities, including the Region of Niagara.
LikeLike
Great to hear our local council member Jamie King of Niagara on the Lake bring the issue to light of Fracking. We need our local MPP and Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson who lives in Niagara Falls to get his team working with local Congress and the Governor of NY
paolo miele
LikeLike
Let’s be honest – do any of us REALLY care about how we get the Natural Gas that heats our homes every winter, or cooks our food year-round? Fracking was invented in Canada, and the NG it releases is sent to Ontario every summer to be stored underground and used the next winter.
Do any of us care about the problems of Albertans with sour gas wells (poisononous H2S gas) and flammable water, do we? These are the same problems being reported in Pennsylvania. In addition, Arkansas USA and Lancashire UK have reported earthquakes as a ‘side effect’ of fracking, and they’ve halted operations pending further research.
Do you know ANYONE willing to spend money on alternatives?
Are there any alternatives?
Suggestions please?
LikeLike
In his comment (about four or five above this one, Lorne White is correct in saying that the Niagara Falls, New York wastewater treatment plant crashed in the late 1970s when its carbon bed system, included to filter out the contaminants from nearby chemical corporations (i.e. Olin and Hooker along Buffalo Avenue, caved in not too long after they were installed. We then endured about four or five years of effluents from these industries and others discharging to the river without appropriate treatment while the city argued with the state and federal governments over who should pay for the repair of the carbon system. I would have to recover the logs from my old file boxes to recall the details of the settlement, but the carbon filtration system was eventually fixed.
That does necessarily mean that the effluent that is run through them is free of contaminants upon discharge to the Niagara River. It also does not help us answer key questions like: “What are the chemicals in this fracking wastewater so that they may be monitored at point of discharge and for any trace of them further down the river and in to Lake Ontario?,” and what are their potential impacts on wildlife and a foodchain up to and including humans in the lower Great Lakes basin?”
Until those questions are adequately addressed, any plan to use this Niagara Falls wastewater facility as a dumping zone for chemically laced fracking wastes should be frozen.
Doug Draper, publisher, Niagara At Large.
LikeLike
Lorne, there are plenty of alternatives. Some of these alternatives require subsidies/incentives for research and development. This is where the Robin Hood Tax (Financial Transactions Tax) comes in. If enough of us REALLY care, then we will support initiatives to get the Tobin Tax (yet another name for it) passed. My most recent article deals with this tax and how we can get it passed. But you’re right, if the Canadian public is quiescent or apathetic, it won’t happen.
LikeLike
All around our Lake Erie there are gas wells , my brother in law in Erie Pennsylvania had one for his own use, heating, drying, even his fridge were gas operated. I know of a gas well on a farm in Black Creek ,that has one, when the pressure gets low explosives were used to fracture the shale and release more gas, we also have gas coming from Lake Erie Re Gas Line, Route 3. My question is do we need toxic fluids to get at the gas, also Trans Canada pipelines about a decade ago put a gas line under the Niagara River to Grand Island to service the New England market. what are the other options?
LikeLike
George:
Actually, Port Colborne was the first place in Ontario to pipe natural gas to homes (1880) and that first farmhouse, owned by Jefferson Steele, still exists.
The problem as outlined above, is that we have long ago burned the gas and emptied our Ontario wells. Every summer, Western Canada gas is pumped via the Trans-Canada Pipeline and storage in our empty underground rock for us to burn in the winter.
In addition, instead of cleaning and/or gassifying Coal to remove its many pollutants, the Ontario government proposes to build Natural Gas plants to make electricity for us (as well as clean wind and solar equipment). They say this will save $3B per year in Health costs … but will also raise our hydro bills, which are rising ~50% every 5 years.
Almost forgot, that’s before we find a way to replace our 50-year-old Nuclear plants which make ~Half of our electricity.
That’s why there is so much exploration in Alberta and elsewhere, and a search for new methods of exploration (fracking).
We are Highly dependent on new gas being discovered to keep us warm, but as with most modern technology, there are ‘side effects’ that most of us don’t want to consider … from Sour Gas eruptions on western farms, to burning water and polluted wells in Pennsylvania & Alberta, to earthquakes in Little Rock Arkansas USA and Lancashire UK.
LikeLike
Science has all sorts of ideas. There are materials that can be applied to windows to absorb sunlight and then store it. I saw this on TED talks. But the Canadian government priorities are wrong. Instead of subsidizing tar sands etc., the money should go into alternative energy sources. Why is this not happening? Corporatocracy.
LikeLike
Actually Mark, Canadian governments ARE subsidising alternative energy:
– Canada gives a Fast write-off of depreciation for Renewable Energy installations, which is faster than that given to the fossil-fuel industry.
– Canada gives large grants to research new Sustainable Development technologies.
– Canada has ecoENERGY grants to retrofit Solar Hot Water and various energy-saving equipment on homes.
– Canada & Ontario have grants for people to retrofit vehicles to burn natural gas, as well as gasoline (it saved me $1000/yr for 20 years! but most people didn’t install it, or tore it out of re-sale vehicles. Why?).
– Alberta is subsidising Carbon Capture research & development, including pumping CO2 into old oil wells, which helps to increase production so that we can keep driving.
– Ontario and Québec are both subsidising development of electric cars, which will create huge problems for finding future pollution-free sources of electricity.
– Ontario has created the Green Energy Act [GEA] to give much higher payments for people to install Solar and Wind generators (currently $.802 and $.135 per kiloWatt hour of electricity versus the current Average of $.08/kWhr). This higher rate is given in exchange for Ontario not needing to borrow to install the generators (the Stranded Debt on our hydro bills still pays for Ontario Hydro’s past construction of Nuclear plants), and to encourage renewable energy companies to locate in Ontario.
However, the GEA results in all of us paying higher hydro rates, making it harder for Ontarians to compete with our largest trading partner (USA), and causing more unemployment as corporations move away to compete. (I’ve already heard of a Northern Ontario mine that ships its ore to Tennessee for smelting & refining because Ontario’s hydro rates are too high.)
– Ontario has NOT taken the much cheaper method of properly filtering coal smoke to completely clean it, and is instead abandoning coal-fired electricity in favour of natural-gas plants, which means cleaner air, but more ground and water pollution from fracking. Why?
– various municipalities across Canada subsidise projects to reduce or produce energy (Welland, Port Colborne & Niagara Falls’ LED streetlighting; Edmonton’s revolving green fund; solar & wind turbines, etc.)
LikeLike
Yes, Canada is susidizing alternate energy technology, as you well know, Lorne, but we’re not doing near enough if we accept the irrefutable science. It’s outrageous that we’re subsidizing the Tar Sands. Those monies should be spent elsewhere.
The Tar Sands pollution is already inflicting huge damages on native communities south of the project.
Check out some of the TED talks programs. The scientific possibilities out there for alternate energies are nothing short of amazing.
Environment, ecology, economy, all derived from the same source, need to be more closely aligned. Will it happen? I have no idea. But it’s worth the fight.
All coal energy plants need to be shut down in Ontario, and this may well happen.
Fracking is horrible for the environment, ecology, economy, and that issue absolutely needs to be addressed. I don’t know enough about it yet, except that from an environmental point of view, it isn’t good.
I believe the provincial government is taking another look at the financing elements of the FIT program.
LikeLike