I’ve read all the available transcripts of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel hearings and listen to the live broadcast when I can. ONE guy so far out of the dozens of people who have presented information has spoken in favour of the pipeline coming anywhere near where they live. Every man, woman and child has said absolutely no. They know that the risks far outweigh any possible benefit to the people who live there.

Yet CBC chooses to make that one guy the headline. CBC please understand that you mean as much to Stephen Harper as our medical system.  He wants to get rid of you both no matter how much you kowtow. So please… just do your job and report the truth without the spin.

These days we are constantly faced with more and more stories of bees disappearing, bat populations becoming decimated, and countless species of birds and other creatures in decline.  Coincidentally or not, these reports are escalating with the proliferation of wireless EMF technology – until recently mainly cell phones and wireless internet. But now, everyone is rushing to add more electromagnetic radiation into the environment by installing these untested “Smart Meters” on every single house and business in the province.

There are reports from people who have beehives that as soon as a Smart Meter was installed on their house, the bees disappeared.  There are reports from concerned people that birds are being harmed and that bat’s are disappearing. There are also reports of plants directly in front of Smart Meters dying, and pets and livestock in the vicinity sickening and dying.

The purpose of the precautionary principle is to safeguard against possible health and environmental risks that have not yet been scientifically established. A risk that is not established cannot, therefore, be used as an excuse for not applying the principle. The proponents of these devices have never properly tested them to see what effect they have on animals, plants or insects and according to the precautionary principal we must err on the side of caution and not use them until any risk is proven to not be there.

We are told that this Smart Meter program is good for the environment because it may encourage people to conserve power. However the rationale of protecting the environment is very short-sighted if by setting up a web of these Smart Meters, it causes more harm than good to the environment.

This letter is to inform you that I am strongly against the BC Hydro’s proposed “Smart Meter” program for many reasons, one of which is because I care about the environment and the other living creatures that share our space. Therefore I am asking that you support a moratorium on this technology until it can be proven without doubt to be safe for humans, plants and animals.

I would appreciate a response to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

xxxx xxxxx

I will add the addresses of the politicians when I have them.  Please feel free to use or modify this letter yourself.

NMED forgot to put the Bulk Fuel facility Jet Fuel Plume on this map despite approving the permit in july 2010.

KAFB Jet Fuel Leakage: What to Do About Groundwater Contamination

In a letter to EPA Region 6 and the NMED HWB, environmental and social justice groups and individual citizens are asking for a public commenting and public hearing as it is their right under state and federal statutes’ regarding the KAFB Bulk Facility Fuel Leak.

Background

The Bulk Facility Jet Fuel Leakage at Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB) is one of a series of environmental disasters perpetrated on their federal reservation. The leakage is one of the most massive in environmental spills in this state’s history leaking jet fuel into the aquifer since the 1970”s when leaded fuel was still used. EDB (ethylene dibromide), a component of leaded gas, and hydrocarbons (JP-4, which is essentially diesel for jet planes) are the very compounds that are now being monitored through water quality testing.  The 8 M gallon spill  (or more) is large enough to fill 15 olympic-size swimming pools of fuel floating in the aquifer, the primary source of drinking water.

The Issue at Hand

At this time the plume is not affecting any of the water production wells. However, two drinking water production wells; the number 5 wells of the both the Ridgecrest and possibly the Burton Well fields could be affected. As the crow flies, the plume’s suspected migration path location down gradient is closest to the Ridge Crest Well number 5 is only 4 city blocks. There has not been any groundwater modeling to precisely know where the plume is migrating. In the 11 years the known plume has existed there were only 3 monitoring wells and one of those wells were up gradients meaning it was drilled out side of the migrating pat of the plume and would never detect a problem.  The other wells were made of stainless steel and have corroded thereby rendering the sampling useless unable to measure the full impact of contaminates. Many other KAFB monitoring wells have screen installed improperly as well.

The saturation of the plume covers nearly 1 mile to the north-northeast of the former KAFB Bulk Fuel Facility site. This area has a LNAPL area defined in the Plume that has vapors that are in desperate need of mitigation. To put the vapor extraction issue into context, in California a spill 100 times smaller than this one would have nearly 15 vapor extraction burners. This spill has one. The California fuel spills have nearly one billion dollars thrown at it and it will never be able to be fully cleaned up.

The current substantial modifications to the KAFB permit will allow 78 monitoring wells. These are not cheap, costing hundred of thousands of dollars.  In other areas of the KAFB and other federal reservations upwards of 2 million dollar have been spent on monitoring wells. Many of the well have been drilled, installed improperly and will show false sampling data. Meaning a vapor extractor in every yard in the neighborhood running 24/7.  As seen from Google Earth there are over150 properties buildings that are affected by this disaster. However, the water delivery system itself is threatened and poses a severe public heath risk and severe water delivery shortage if the current sampling is only done once a month and the plume hit the wells the day after it was sampled.  The public could be drinking jet fuel for 35 days before a problem is detected.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a.k.a the Hazardous Waste Act, facilities that create hazardous waste must be permitted under federal and state statutes’.  When the NMED Groundwater Bureau who was investigating a reported jet fuel spill around the fueling docks discovered the extent of the leakage in 1999. At that time NMED realized the spill was massive and it was reported in the Albuquerque Journal the is would take 10 years to clean up. The proverbial ball was dropped.  After a constant nudging by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) the NMED HWB finally put the ball back into play within the federal oversight under RCRA because of Kirtland Air Force Base is a federal reservation and jurisdictional issues affects the oversight.

Despite the informational meetings offered by the New Mexico Environment Department Hazardous Waste Bureau [(NMED) (HWB)] their presentations have queried far more questions than have satisfied answers. Regarding NMED’s Jan 12^th, 2011, 20-page Power Point presentation I have listed 40 questions that have not been answered satisfactorily. (See attached list of Questions. also at http://www.environmentalsafeguards.org/water.html)

In the informational meetings citizens who are being impacted directly or indirectly are only allowed to field a couple of questions and most of the time do not know enough about the law to understand what their rights are under the law. This truncated view of the problem is disingenuous to public when in fact they are entitled to a full commenting period and a public hearing. Answers to questions are over-simplified and vague with presenter lionizing the strong hand of the Environment Department while the full picture has not been painted for the public.

The facts are the NMED has substantially modified the RCRA Permit, which has changed the classification of the permit from classification level 2 that allows for a public commenting period to a modification classification Model 3, which entitles the public to have a public hearing.  In fact I specifically asked in the Jan 12^th meeting, “when do we the public get to comment on the record.”  The question was glossed over.

The more I study the problem the more I see things slip through the cracks

This will allow people to comment on the planned Aquifer/Underground Injection Control (UIC) and the possible impacts on that to the drinking water ground water.

Aquifer Injection Pump and Treat and ARS

The hydrological studies on Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) that the ABCWUA as the permittee from the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have not proved the impacts on seeps and springs within the hydrological area of influence nor has it proved that the pH, water temperature difference in order to preserve the natural conditions of groundwater or impacts on surface water and other water rights holders through their beneficial use, and

1. The chemical analysis of river water does not include calcium and magnesium, which prevents determination of an ion balance in the water, the scaling tendency of the water or the sodium adsorption ration. The scaling tendency indicates the probability of forming (or Removing) a calcium carbonate layer of the downstream distribution system. It also indicates the compatibility with other waters, which the product water may be mixed with.
2. Consideration should also be given to understanding the effects of mixing pumped groundwater with treated river water, Chemical analysis of proposed well field groundwater source will provide invaluable information for understanding and predicting potential adverse conditions.
3. Bromide concentration in the water had not been specified; even the modest concentrations of bromide in the feed water can be significantly promoting the formation of Disinfectant By Products (DBPs). It is not clear what the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) consists of. The TOC of the river water is high enough that one must worry about the formation of DBPs. Some of the organic carbon will be removed during the coagulation process, but not all.
4. It is not clear what residence time would exist between the addition of chlorine and addition of ammonia to convert the chlorine to monochloramine. One of the advantages of using chloramines for disinfection is the lowered tendency to form DPBs. However, if the period of time that the water is exposed to chlorine is too long, this advantage is dissipated. Reference is made to the hazards of use of chlorine gas as disinfectant.  Further investigation and study is needed to prove the viability of these ABCWUA ASR projects and whether they have the ability to provide safe and verifiable water source is require and that any permit already issued without these considerations should be pulled.

Under New Mexico Aquifer Storage and Recovery Act the permittee must show other contaminants or other known plumes of contamination in the area. NMED has a Letter of Understanding (LOU) from the Office of the State Engineer regarding the Water Quality on aquifer injection. Yet there are no regulations on the books requiring NMED to oversee permitting of an injections project.  Under the current law:

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Act and its rules and regulations, NMSA1978, 72-5A-1 through 72-5A-17 (1999 Supp.) Title 19 Chapter 25 Part 8.

The permittee must prove that their actions of the injection process will not affect the sphere of influence of those identified plumes or known contaminants by the potential turbulence of the injection plume and migrating water flows or other actions practiced by the permittee in this case. This has not been acknowledged or talked about.

Underground Injection Control Wells- It has come to our attention that it is up to the State’s discretion to permit the wells under RCRA and/or Safe Drinking Water Act. Whether these injection wells will be a Class IV or Class Five (under 40 CFR 144) and would need to be positive that such reinjection of contaminated water would not endanger underground sources of drinking water. We are requesting that NMED require a permit in order to ensure that the ABCWUA drinking water supply from this very groundwater source is adequately protected and that this permit process is subject to a formal public commenting period and public hearing.  In order to delegate the UIC state program:

According to the UIC federal statues

The Underground Injection Control Program is authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The program is to assure that injection of fluids underground is accomplished in an environmentally safe manner. The Environmental Protection Agency established minimum requirements necessary to meet that objective. Those include:

1. All injection wells must be either authorized by permit or rule.
2. Minimum construction and siting requirements.
3. Requirements for permit applications and processes which must be followed for permit evaluation.

Enforcement of program requirements. —http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/w/sdwauic.htm

The EPA retains enforcement authority where the states were unable to demonstrate jurisdiction or if a state does not adequately enforce program requirements.

This plume’s footprint is large and has an elaborate pump and treat system that has people asking several questions to which there are no answers. The hydrological studies of the aquifer injection have not been proven or has it been studied and evaluated as to what impacts on seeps and springs within the hydrological area of influence; nor has it proved that the pH, water temperature difference in order to preserve the natural conditions of groundwater or impacts on surface water and other water rights holders regarding their beneficial use, and the following concerning regarding aquifer/underground Controlled injection. The case of the Bulk Facility Fuel Spill it is not an empty borehole that they are plugging. It is injection back into the drinking water aquifer.

The attempt to explain how the aquifer injection is going to work has raised other questions that have not been answered. The concerns of what type of process is going to clean this water have not been addressed.  The must be explained in a written report. The public deserves get the explanation and assurance in writing it is the public health risk at stake.

No formal studies have been done to insure that the injection well will not cause turbulence and disperse contaminants over a wider area, thereby raising the maximum contaminant levels in the aquifer. Nor has there been a report submitted by KAFB on the number of known plumes within a 3 miles radius that could be affected by the infiltration and injection systems plan.  The permit itself recognizes 9 areas of groundwater contamination but the full extent of this contamination is left out of the permit, such as the placement of well, condition of well and screens, construction of the monitoring wells.

Furthermore how the water will be tested and the ultimately treated is another concern. According to the permit issued 7-15-10, Bureau Chief James Bearzi referred to in his response to the Citizens for Environmental Safeguards (CES) Request for Public Information of January 20 & 26M NMED only requires testing for perchlorates for a period of one years. Yet there is no mention of perchlorates testing being done on the Bulk Fuel Facility JP4 and 8!

6.4.1.4. Perchlorate Screening in Groundwater

Monitoring for perchlorate is required for eight consecutive quarters in groundwater monitoring wells installed at the Facility after the effective date of this Permit and in the following existing wells or their replacements: KAFB-1001 through KAFB-1007 (McCormick Ranch/Range wells), KAFB-1901 through KAFB-1904 (Lake Christian wells), and EOD Hill well. The Department reserves the right to include additional wells for perchlorate monitoring. The Permittee shall report all monitoring results on January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31 of each year for at least 8 consecutive quarters to the Department, unless the Department agrees in writing to a longer reporting period.

The Permittee shall determine the nature, extent, and rate of migration of any perchlorate contamination in groundwater at the Facility and, if necessary, down gradient of the Facility. The detection limit for the monitoring of perchlorate in groundwater shall not exceed 1 ug/L.

If perchlorate is detected in a groundwater at a concentration greater than or equal to 1 ug/L in a groundwater monitoring well, monitoring of perchlorates in such well must continue at a frequency determined by the Department. The frequency shall not exceed one year.

In this case the KAFB only has to test for 1 year out of a 10-year permit!

Other plumes of contaminants that exist in the area should identify and mapped in relation to the Bulk Fuel Facility Jet Fuel Plume. According to NMED web site the permit that was issued in 7/15/2010, there are groundwater contamination sites are listed that show 8 other sites.  Over 268 sites that have been rated “no further action” which doesn’t mean that they are cleaned up it could mean that the contamination is too costly to clean up.   

Other issue with KAFB

According to NMED Website the Permit that was issued in 7/15/2010. In the permit the groundwater contamination sites are listed that show 8 other sites.  Over 268 sites that have been rated “no further action” which doesn’t mean that they are cleaned up it could mean that the contamination is too costly to clean up.   

Permit Part 6.4.1.3. Areas with Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination or the potential for groundwater contamination has been identified at the following areas:

1. Tijeras Arroyo Groundwater (TAG) Area – trichloroethylene (TCE) and nitrate;

2. Landfills #4, #5, and #6, LF-008 (SWMU 6-4)–potential for contamination by selenium and TCE;

3. Manzano Base Groundwater – TCE;

4. Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Pond, WP-026 – TCE, nitrate;

5. Manzano Sewage Treatment Facility, WP-16 (SWMU 6-24) – potential for

Contamination;

6. Monitoring well WYO-4 area – TCE;

7. McCormick Ranch — Nitrate;

8. Bulk Fuels Facility, ST-106 and SS-111 — Fuel (JP-4, JP-8, and Aviation Gas) Contamination; and

9. EOD Hill – Perchlorate contamination.

The Permittee shall complete an Investigation Work Plan, Investigation Report, or CME Report

New Mexico Environment Department Kirtland Air Force Base

July 2010 Hazardous Waste Facility Permit No.NM9570024423

PERMIT PART 6 for each of the nine areas of groundwater contamination in accordance with the compliance schedules in Table I-3 of Permit Attachment I. The Permittee shall complete a CME Report for each area of groundwater contamination that requires remediation, as determined by the Department. In addition, Permittee shall investigate other areas of the Facility, in addition to those listed above, where the Department determines that either groundwater is contaminated or there is potential for groundwater contamination.

Who lives down gradient? Nearly 80,000 to 100,000 people in the Mesa Del Sol community, the village of Mountain View the South Valley Agricultural Community and directly south the Pueblo of Isleta.

What is reported here is not the worse of it. The radionuclide’s for bomb making manufacturing and the Sandia National Laboratory nuclear reactor that has no containment building and government contractors throwing deadly toxic waste in boxes, plastic bags, and steel drums that are decomposing and leaks in into the aquifer.  All of this sits upon the crossroads of three major faults; just south of the facility is the Seismic Facility for USGS, yesterday there was a reported earthquake measuring. 2.9 on the Richter Scale on the Los Alamos National Laboratory reservation along the Jemez Caldera Rim New Mexico’s Super Volcano.

To have these facilities in a metropolitan area is not smart, puts at risks the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives, destroying the biosphere and holds out little promise that our children will know the Earth as we did as children.  We are the last generation to do anything about the problems at hand.  Join us in our challenge to tell the stories of who we are and how we are going to transform this world despite the realities we face.

As the Earth becomes more inhospitable and difficult to survive in, perhaps we may find us a path to sweet water then again, might not. This is a place where marginalized Indians, Mexicans, and women struggle to speak their voices, yet only the howls of coyotes can be heard. Cackling and vying for alpha positions. It is there where the voices that held knowledge spoke and it is where grandmothers lived.  It is a land where water flows in a ditch or it doesn’t.  Where the water is in the plants, trees and the rocks, and it is brokered, brokered like our relationship to Earth and Sky that is so familiar in the West.  Our land of little rain where clouds fly by yet keeps their gifts for others. It rains so hard with never touching the ground or pours so violent it drowns with the deluge of mud, turbid and rank. Taste the salty sweat bead as it passes over our lips all the while longing for sweet water.  It carries with it the snow, the ice or the fire and heat it is that which flows, blood, water and life.

Our land of little rain. Must we move or stay, without rain, there is no life.

What I do know is that being denied information under the “Request for Public Documents” law these pubilc and private entities using national security and the Patriots act act as a means of withholding information is dangerous to our democracy. What is consumed  by the public is our fundamental human right. The moral reasoning behind impacting human health in the region for water storage at all costs is not acceptable. this is what seems to be at the heart of the issue. Using a means of water storage that will impact water indefinitely is too much of a risk and the ‘Precautionary Prinicpal’ should be adopted and applied. We deserve to have that right implemented several cities have already done this In order to come to terms with climate change we must start somewhere, why not now.

People need answers and they have a right to those answers. Democracy needs accountability. This is just the beginning.

A Memorial Requesting that the NM Department of Health and NM Department of NMED Evaluate in a Public Study and Report the Quality of Potable Water being delivered to the customers in the Albuquerque Bernalillo Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) system; in comparison to all artesian groundwater productions deep-wells that ABCWUA had been using exclusively; to the quality of treated and source Rio Grande Diversion Water, and the effectiveness of the treatment process and the risks to public health on ingesting low levels contaminants.

1.  WHEREAS, The Residents have concerns over the water quality issues; whom had previously known good health and that some of the deep aquifer water being of a good pH value.

2. WHEREAS, An additional water source of the SAN JUAN/CHAMA/ RIO GRANDE RIVER has now been diverted that includes treated effluent from several cities upstream and

4. WHEREAS, the drinking water delivered by ABCWUA to an estimated 500,000 people for consumption includes infants, seniors, the infirmed and others with weakened or underdeveloped immune systems and

5. WHEREAS, It is the responsibility to the ABCWUA to provide public information, (to be posted on their website and inserted through their billing information), including the water testing the quality of source water and treated water ready for delivery (before and After treatment) and tap water; that the ABCWUA water treatments are under the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and is better or equal to the deep water production wells and is safe for those infants, seniors the infirmed and other with weakened or underdeveloped immune systems and

6. WHEREAS, there has been no public hearings or public commenting periods on water quality studies, testing, permits and independent analysis by which the ABCWUA is now doing their testing and treatment; members of the public has lost confidence in the ABCWUA ability to provide healthy water, and

7. WHEREAS, The public has been denied and has experienced difficulties in obtaining public information and detailed information of the water quality and as to where each well is and what pollutant impacts the municipal productions wells are experiencing and has adopted policies and practices that supersede the New Mexico State law NMSA 1978 Chapter 14 Request for Public Documents act, and

8. WHEREAS, The need for transparency in government with regard to treatment technologies used and its reliability, and

9. WHEREAS, The hydrological studies on Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) that the ABCWUA as the permittee from the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have not proved the impacts on seeps and springs within the hydrological area of influence nor has it proved that the pH, water temperature difference in order to preserve the natural conditions of groundwater or impacts on surface water and other water rights holders through their beneficial use, and

1. The chemical analysis of river water does not include calcium and magnesium, which prevents determination of an ion balance in the water, the scaling tendency of the water or the sodium adsorption ration. The scaling tendency indicates the probability of forming (or Removing) a calcium carbonate layer of the downstream distribution system. It also indicates the compatibility with other waters, which the product water may be mixed with.
2. Consideration should also be given to understanding the effects of mixing pumped groundwater with treated river water, Chemical analysis of proposed well field groundwater source will provide invaluable information for understanding and predicting potential adverse conditions.
3. Bromide concentration in the water had not been specified; even the modest concentrations of bromide in the feed water can be significantly promoting the formation of Disinfectant By Products (DBPs). It is not clear what the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) consists of. The TOC of the river water is high enough that one must worry about the formation of DBPs. Some of the organic carbon will be removed during the coagulation process, but not all.
4. It is not clear what residence time would exist between the addition of chlorine and addition of ammonia to convert the chlorine to monochloramine. One of the advantages of using chloramines for disinfection is the lowered tendency to form DPBs. However, if the period of time that the water is exposed to chlorine is too long, this advantage is dissipated. Reference is made to the hazards of use of chlorine gas as disinfectant.  Further investigation and study is needed to prove the viability of these ABCWUA ASR projects and whether they have the ability to provide safe and verifiable water source is require and that any permit already issued without these considerations should be pulled.

10. WHEREAS, and update to the EPA Source Water Assessment (SWA) that includes the raw diversion source water and there has been not information provided to the public by NMED or ABCWUA on the status of a request to update the assessment, and

11. WHEREAS, This region of the Rio Grande suffers from of radionuclides contamination, as proven by independent analysis; that migrations in air and water from the national laboratories and other sources and the allowable levels of these contaminants are higher than those recognized and recommended in the study on radionuclide’s in the Rio Grande  by DR. A. Makhanjani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

12. WHEREAS, The ABCWUA water treatment and delivery system is antiquated and corroded and does not include contemporary filtration systems found in other metropolitan cities; and that the system is in need of a complete overhaul. Some of the municipal production wells are not made to standards that include annular casings to keep contaminates from entering the water delivery system and being consumed by the public, and

13 WHEREAS, the EPA is now considering maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and testing for Perchlorates, Chromium 6, PPCP’s and other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC s), AND

14. WHEREAS, The some of these contaminants at low levels have and accumulative effect that cause serious health effects years later.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

THAT:

1. The NM Health Department in conjunction with the NMED Safe Drinking Water conduct a study of the quality of the source water and quality of Rio Grande Diversion water and the treated water in the delivery system with comparison to the artesian deep water aquifer; that all testing be conducted by an outside independent source.
2. Consideration should be given to the legislated Federal and state environmental and cultural resource requirements and their impacts on the ARS, testing, new treatment facilities and delivery infrastructure, projects scope, schedule and costs. Studied (such as the environmental impacts statements and other NEPA compliance studies, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, compliance studies and Air Quality and Stormwater requirements) required on these projects are time-consuming and must be identified and planned for.
3. That a Feasibility Study not included on projects that need compliance risks significant increases in the total estimated costs of the projects which can be substantial.
4. A report on the treatment system with updated technologies and redesign to include fail safe features. This report is to include the Rio Rancho waste water treatment facility outflow and its contaminant releases and how they impact the Rio Grande surface water quality; to be completed within one year as an open public document on the governmental websites with three informational meetings on the status of the Public study report.
5. The Public Study Report should examine the impacts of the ABCWUA ASR plan and permit to the aquifer ground and surface water, beneficial use plans and examine the impacts of raw river water, treated effluent and tap water; the report to include recommendations.
6. Be it further resolved, that the EPA Primary and Secondary and Emerging contaminants be included in the report; to include other contaminants now being studied for MCLs by the EPA and Global Water community of Water quality specialist e.g. FUNGI, CHROMIUM 6, NANO PARTICLES, PHARMACEUTICALS, ETC.).
7. This public study and report review includes member’s appointed by from environmental organizations and concerned qualified citizens.

By DAVE DORMER

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton has again called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to impose a moratorium on new oilsands projects in Alberta until a better environmental strategy is crafted.

There should be a halt “until (the federal government) can prove to Albertans, to First Nations and to all Canadians that it has examined the cumulative social and environmental impacts of the oilsands development and has plans in place to address those consequences,” Layton said at the Alberta NDP’s annual convention in Calgary.

“There’s some good scientists and good engineers working on solutions to this issue, but they haven’t got them all in place yet and the precautionary principal says that we should,” he said.

“If we’re thinking about the next generation, we should have a plan for the implications.”

Layton used the recently approved Kearl Development as an example, saying the $8-billion project being built about 70 km north of Fort McMurray will spew about 3.7-million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually once production begins, which is expected sometime in 2011.