Lavington contaminated waters

Glacier · Post by **Glacier** » Sep 25th, 2013, 6:31 pm

Interestingly they spent $70,000 of tax payer's money fighting what will likely be an $18,000 fine.

RGM · Post by **RGM** » Sep 25th, 2013, 11:28 pm

Big Government fines Little Government(s). What a crime. RDNO is not "them". It is us and our wallets. A provincial bureaucrat decrees a standard with no regard or responsibility to cost and then fines us because it is too expensive to fix every possibility. So, we the taxpayer must first cover the cost of dealing with the problem and its ongoing increased costs and then are forced to give the provincial tax collectors more tax in the form of a fine. Too much government and too much power to steal more of our hard earned money.

bob vernon · Post by **bob vernon** » Sep 26th, 2013, 6:11 am

Spend a few tens of thousands of dollars and the taxpayers go into a rage.

Spend $763 million on a hydro line to nowhere and they don't even know it's happening. Subsidize the hydro that the line carries with household hydro cost increases and they just pay it.

Glacier · Post by **Glacier** » Oct 18th, 2013, 8:47 am

I really don't understand NORD/RDNO's position. Any lawyer will tell you that environmental law falls under strict liability, which means that you are still at fault even if you were not the one who caused the spill. And then they start spouting off so much that the judge gets concerned that they may have been speaking mistruths.

They could have saved $70,000 if their lawyer had explained the simple concept of strict liability to them.

image999 · Post by **image999** » Oct 22nd, 2013, 10:54 pm

In particular, McKimm says comments by RDNO Board Chair, Patrick Nichol in many media publications as well as the one he heard on the radio while driving home just two days after he gave the guilty verdict, left him unsettled.

McKimm says Nicol and the RDNO continue to claim they have done nothing wrong and that they have somehow been disserved by the justice system.

Let's not forget that there was liquid cow poop exiting our kitchen faucets in much of the Coldstream Valley. More importantly, this potentially could have had dire health results and you were still continuing to claim that here was no wrongdoing ?

rvrepairnut · Post by **rvrepairnut** » Nov 9th, 2013, 9:12 am

there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision

GordonH · Post by **GordonH** » Nov 9th, 2013, 10:17 am

rvrepairnut wrote:there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision

What strike me odd about this why place a Well for drinking water on/near working farm land.

rvrepairnut · Post by **rvrepairnut** » Nov 9th, 2013, 10:21 am

rvrepairnut wrote:there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision

What strike me odd about this why place a Well for drinking water on/near working farm land.[/quote]

You know I asked the same question when this mess happened and its not really that close but I believe that is the reason NORD is guilty is because as I said they ought to have realized the possible dangers of contamination and should have better protected the water intake area(rather obvious now)

image999 · Post by **image999** » Dec 21st, 2013, 7:42 pm

-New Sentencing date January 16, 2014
-judge wanting to clarify some comments made by an RDNO official. Patrick Nicol
http://www.1075kiss.com/kiss-news/lates ... encing-set

james-d · Post by **james-d** » Dec 24th, 2013, 10:29 am

Remember Walkerton. Get ready Lavington. The owner of the property in question does NOT care what he does to YOUR well, And the govts at all levels don't care what happens to you. Whoever told you they did??? they are politicians, Ever met an honest one?????

rvrepairnut · Post by **rvrepairnut** » Dec 24th, 2013, 7:05 pm

james-d wrote:Remember Walkerton. Get ready Lavington. The owner of the property in question does NOT care what he does to YOUR well, And the govts at all levels don't care what happens to you. Whoever told you they did??? they are politicians, Ever met an honest one?????

james? *removed*/ferri Palfrey is no longer in the Vernon area and has had this property repoed/sold and iam also 100% sure the RDNO has disaplined their guilty workers to the point this occurance wont repeat

image999 · Post by **image999** » Jan 15th, 2014, 8:19 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Postby Glacier » Oct 18th, 2013, 7:47 am
I really don't understand NORD/RDNO's position. Any lawyer will tell you that environmental law falls under strict liability, which means that you are still at fault even if you were not the one who caused the spill. And then they start spouting off so much that the judge gets concerned that they may have been speaking mistruths.

They could have saved $70,000 if their lawyer had explained the simple concept of strict liability to them.

GordonH · Post by **GordonH** » Jan 16th, 2014, 3:15 pm

http://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/106 ... e-for-NORD

shoo · Post by **shoo** » Jan 16th, 2014, 3:46 pm

Patrick passed away today.

Glacier · Post by **Glacier** » Aug 20th, 2018, 10:59 am

shoo wrote:Patrick passed away today.

So Patrick and Palfrey both passed away within a short period of each other?

Also, there is a culvert put under the highway put in at great expens. The idea was to build some filtering/settling ponds to try and filter out the nitrates coming from the old dairy farm. Interestingly enough, the spring floods this year cut a hole in the ponds such that the water NOT being filtered at all, and instead is being pumped directly into Coldstream creek. They would have been better off letting the gravel from the farm under the road to the creek filter out some nitrates rather than sending it all directly into the creek.

No one has even tried to fix the gaping hole in the pond.

FAIL.