Q5. Water and PFAS. PFAS from old firefighting foam has reached Trout Lake, our drinking water source, and federal money is currently paying for the cleanup and a treatment pilot. If the water plant needs a permanent upgrade, how will you keep that bill off local taxpayers? Will you commit to publishing PFAS test results in plain language?
Connor Currie
No reply
Melanie Demers
No reply
Maggie Horsfield
If the Trout Lake water plant needs a permanent PFAS treatment upgrade, my priority is keep the cost off local ratepayers as much as possible by:
- Pursuing long-term federal and provincial funding (infrastructure programs, environmental remediation funds, and any PFAS-specific streams).
- Exploring cost-sharing with responsible parties where applicable, and ensuring we maximize grants before considering local borrowing.
- Structuring any local contribution over a long amortization period, if absolutely necessary, to avoid sharp rate spikes.
Yes, I would commit to publishing PFAS test results in plain language, on a dedicated, easy-to-find webpage and through regular updates, including:
- What PFAS are.
- How current levels compare to health guidelines.
- What treatment is in place.
- What’s being done next.
Residents shouldn’t have to decode technical reports to understand their drinking water.
Jamie Lowery
DND has said it will cover 97% of the costs related to PFAS remediation and water source protection measures. I will ensure that remaining capital costs for long-term upgrades do not fall on local property taxpayers.
While plans to upgrade the water treatment plant are developed, I want to see the mitigation schedule accelerated, including providing charcoal filtration systems to any homeowners whose drinking water shows elevated levels.
I am fully committed to publishing water quality and PFAS test results regularly and in plain, accessible language.
Daniel Seguin
No reply