The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Does the Manitoba government have a double standard? That was the question Dennis Hydamaka recently posed to a provincial official, and it was a fair one. Mr. Hydamaka, whose downtown property contains greatly elevated levels of five smelter-borne toxins, asked why the province was resoiling metal-contaminated public parks but not similarly tainted private yards. If the status of parks is such that they require costly new soil and sod, how is his land any different? I asked that very question of Conservation Minister Stan Struthers, and he would not rule out an expansion of the resoiling program to include private properties. But he said such a decision would hinge on the human-health risk assessment (HHRA) of smelter pollution to be released in early 2010. If a legitimate risk is identified, Mr. Struthers will weigh his options. The minister's comments raise a couple of important questions. First, should people like Mr. Hydamaka be bound by the same definition of risk as Mr. Struthers and his bureaucrats? While the HHRA is vitally important, conducted with government expertise and oversight, it is only one study, and it has some acknowledged limitations. No matter what the study finds, there will be some who do not fully accept the result. Tests show Mr. Hydamaka's yard contains 15 times the established health limit for mercury, seven times the arsenic, three times the lead, and twice the cadmium and copper. Even though the health limits are based on year-round soil exposure Ð not a reality in Flin Flon given our long winters Ð those are quite excessive levels. It is hardly irrational to have concerns about them. Then there is the broader issue of trust in government. Governments are prone to mistakes, erring on the side of caution needlessly some of the time and not being cautious enough other times. Their array of experts is top-notch, I am sure, but the fact is that government does not always know best. So if you are a resident with high metal levels in your yard and you accept a) the limitations of a single study and b) government dexterity, where does that leave you in terms of getting your property cleaned up? Unless Mr. Struthers comes to agree with you, you'll either have to live with your uncertainty or pay for fresh soil out of your own pocket. Which brings us to the second pertinent question: Is that fair? Who should pay to clean up private yards containing high metal levels? It is easy to say the financial responsibility rests solely with HBMS, since it is their smelter that has permeated much of the local soil with toxins. As George Bihun, environmental project officer for the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, recently told The Reminder, "If someone created the pollutant, they should be paying to clean it up." Then again, the smelter has operated with the blessing of the provincial and federal governments. If regulators had a problem with the amount of heavy metals coming out of the smoke stack, they could have imposed stricter emissions limits at any time. Mr. Hydamaka's yard contains elevated doses of heavy, toxic metals through no fault of his own. Whichever side pays, neither he nor any other citizen should be expected to live on such metal-contaminated grounds if they do not feel comfortable doing so. Local Angle runs Fridays.
