Editor,
Why should we be concerned about water contamination? Being brief, it is of prime concern! Construction of the Pumped Storage project on our DND lands in Meaford will disturb approximately 70 million tons of soil and aggregate that has been exposed to more than 25 million rounds of military ammo fired into the area for the past 75 years. Once disturbed, this assortment of contaminants from these munitions and other military training activities can begin to travel down through dolomite karst rock and base layer shale to local wells, aquifers and Georgian Bay. Likely some surface runoff occurs to local creeks then to Georgian Bay. Undisturbed these contaminants will for the most part just stay where they are.
Our Municipal Council, by their own published statements, exists to serve the community.
However, based on my observations, when it comes to “community benefits,” our Council—particularly Deputy Mayor Shirley Keaveney—has focused on a single project that overshadows all others. Unfortunately, despite clear, well-documented facts and risks associated with this energy storage project, most members of Council and our CAO continue to disregard more suitable alternatives. This persistent reluctance to consider better options prompts the question: Why?
For over five years, there has been a deliberate silence surrounding this project, allowing it to move forward largely unchallenged. There has been no honest, updated communication from either the Council or TC Energy. While the municipality’s support is said to depend on government-mandated environmental and geological testing to assess risks to the Grey Bruce and Georgian Bay areas, we are expected to trust that these upcoming assessments will be thorough and address all potential harms. Do not be so sure!
Recently, Council approved baseline water testing for a variety of potential contaminants. At first glance, this appears to be an excellent responsible action. However, I do understand Deputy Mayor Keaveney’s motion to set the testing budget at only $15,000*. Although the intended contaminants for testing have been disclosed, such a limited budget cannot fund comprehensive and effective testing. This motion appears to be an example of “virtue signalling,” with Council attempting to demonstrate “due diligence” to appease constituents. This approach does a disservice to our community. There are important, readily available facts—well known to Council—that must be addressed to protect Ontarians; proper assessment of our water quality will require a much greater investment.
Here I will present necessary steps and the estimated costs for proper water testing**:
Step 1: Pre-Construction
Baseline testing should cover at least 15 residential wells (the more, the better) focused around base perimeter on top and below plus aquifer flow paths and including Warren Creek, a minimum of two fish habitats in the bay and the water intake area for the Town of Meaford. No estimate has been provided for potential cleanup if contaminants are found.
Step 2: During Construction
Ongoing and timely testing should be conducted at various locations and stages of construction. If contaminants are detected, immediate cleanup should follow. This is the phase where the potential to locate contaminants is greatest due to land disturbance.
Step 3: Post-Construction
Testing should be repeated in suspected high-risk areas at multiple intervals (annually, biannually, or as needed) throughout the project’s 50-year lifespan, with prompt remediation if required.
Based on input from local experts and potential testing contractors, I estimate the cost for just the baseline testing (Step 1) to be between $35,000 (low) and $45,000 (high). It is important to also recognize that the costs for potential contaminant cleanup (post construction) could be in the multiple millions of dollars.
We must also consider the need for thorough testing of sediment contaminants in Georgian Bay, which will inevitably be disturbed by daily reservoir discharges. There are two or three key areas of concern for such testing, but this issue warrants separate attention. However more testing make current cost estimates from Ms. Keaveney, council and TCE seem like a drop in an ever-expanding bucket.***
Despite repeated inquiries to TC Energy, the Provincial and Federal governments, the IESO, and several area councils regarding the rationale behind continuing with this project, I have received no explanations, no responses, and no justifications. The silence from all parties remains overwhelming.
All of this testing, the associated high costs, years of disruptive construction, environmental risks, wildlife endangerment, frustrated constituents, as well as numerous PSAC meetings and letters outlining the flaws of this project, are unnecessary. There are better energy storage systems available today, with more on the horizon as technology advances. While some regulations apply to solutions like battery storage none of the major concerns linked to pumped storage exist if we can adopt other solutions. So why are we wasting time, energy and expenses advancing an outdated energy storage system?
I still wish you all a Happy New Year and a successful 2026!
Now cancel this ill-advised Pumped Storage project and give us back our $285 million we advanced to TC Energy…with thanks of course!
*DM Keaveney’s number is not confirmed on the 2026 draft budget but was mentioned only verbally from a reliable source. Hence, it is just “hearsay” at this point but worth repeating.
**thanks to Mr. Paul Young, Meaford and Garry Hunter, Mississauga for their expertise.
***I recommend that all readers of this letter google CBC’s article with regards to North Bay’s Department of National Defence $120M clean up of contaminants that got in to Trout Lake and North Bay’s residential water supply.
Pat Maloney, Meaford
