The Silent Alarm @NoFlowZone

State of emergency declared in Orange County as temperature rises inside tank with toxic chemical and 50,000 residents remain under evacuation order. cnn.it/4eYAZ5w

@BluntButRight 🤣

@RealAndyLeeShow Do we not remember the last election where candidates needed to hide from China in our own country?

@BluntButRight @DanWilliamsAB

@DanWilliamsAB Do Rural Albertans not deserve the same MGA oversight as Calgarians?? cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…

.@DanWilliamsAB what about Rural Alberta? Do we not deserve the same MGA oversight as the city of Calgary?? cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…

cbc.ca/news/canada/ca…

youtu.be/D16e5ZVLN74?si…

The Time Westridge Put a Drinking Water Intake Right Next to a Cow Pasture Here is a story that shows how recklessly noncompliant Westridge Water Supply Ltd., now Westridge Utilities, Inc., has been from the very beginning. This is not speculation. It is a matter of public record from a 1996 Environmental Appeal Board decision. (decisia.lexum.com/aeab/appeals/e…) They tried to install a permanent raw water intake pipe 30 centimetres from the fence line of Colpitts Ranches, a working cattle operation. That fence separated the water intake from a pasture where cattle routinely grazed, and runoff from the pasture flowed directly into the ditch feeding the intake. This was not just any intake. It was intended to supply hundreds of homes across multiple Springbank subdivisions, including Westridge Park and River Ridge Estates. Westridge called the change a routine amendment. They bypassed public notice, skipped environmental review, and went straight to approval. No consultation. No proper oversight. But ranch manager Joe Zink found out and filed an appeal. Westridge told regulators the new location had better water because it was spring-fed. Their engineer, Thomas Doran, claimed he saw the grass ripple and concluded it was a groundwater source. No tests. No scientific study. Just an eyeball guess. (This is the same engineer who designed and stamped subdivision fire hydrant designs and signed CCCs and FACs for fire suppression per Development Agreements across Springbank.) That supposed spring was actually on Zink’s property, 60 meters away. The intake itself was sitting in a surface drainage ditch. Runoff, cattle manure, and farm chemicals would wash straight into it. It gets worse. Westridge had already installed a 2-inch “experimental” water line to the site before applying for approval. It was unapproved and undisclosed. They were collecting water quality data and using it to support their application. Some of that data was dated from before the pipe was even in place. That is not speculation either. It came out during cross-examination. Their operator, Doug Smith, admitted that the data was handwritten, pulled from old logs, and not based on any scientific method. No lab analysis. No sampling plan. He chose the numbers himself and could not confirm how or when the samples were taken. The Board called this data arbitrary and said it carried negligible credibility. The regulator approved the intake without ever visiting the site. The engineer from Alberta Environment admitted he relied entirely on Westridge’s word. He said he did not consider raw water quality and saw no need to apply the rules around harmful releases into water systems. He claimed those only applied after treatment. The Board disagreed. They found that placing a drinking water intake 30 centimetres from a manure-fed drainage ditch was inherently dangerous. If pathogens like Cryptosporidium enter the intake, which is legally part of the waterworks system, the ranch could face prosecution under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act—even if it had done nothing illegal. That is because the law forbids the release of substances into a waterworks system that might cause the treated water to exceed regulated levels. In other words, Westridge could contaminate the water just by building the intake too close to a pasture, and the rancher next door would be blamed. The Board made it clear that this was not a hypothetical problem. The intake had no design features to block runoff. Westridge admitted the new location was intended to become their primary intake, not an auxiliary one, as they claimed. Their submission concealed key facts, including the unapproved earlier line and their real plans. The Board allowed the appeal. They found the approval process was mishandled. They found the data was unreliable. They ordered Alberta Environment to reconsider the application and to treat it like any normal water intake, with full public notice and scientific review. This was almost thirty years ago. The facts already showed a pattern that continues today. Westridge acts first and seeks permission later. They provide unreliable or no data. They obscure their true intentions. They avoid scrutiny whenever possible. If anyone asks why hydrants do not work or why Westridge keeps operating behind closed doors, this case explains it. To me, this is how it started. This is how it continues.

@ElmeligiSarah @DanWilliamsAB

Municipal Affairs doesn’t care - @ABMuniAffairs @ABDanielleSmith

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

^ *County

What did the Count know and when?

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@SafetyCodesAB

I wonder if they ever got an answer...

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@SafetyCodesAB

How many hydrants? How many homes? How many lives? (Plus 700 homes south of the river).

@SafetyCodesAB

"...we did not have a clear understanding of how many, or which hydrants..." and the County is looking for dates they went OOS, what repairs are required...??? They knew in Jan 2019!

@SafetyCodesAB

RVC refers residents back to WUI who never provide answers - despite telling the County they would. RVC knows this.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next