SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
With the recommended 2020 replacement date for Yellowknife's water pipeline fast approaching, city councillors have begun the process of deciding whether to replace the eight-kilometre pipeline that draws water from the Yellowknife River or instead draw water from Yellowknife Bay.

City councillors hear a presentation about Yellowknife's drinking water options during a Municipal Services Committee meeting on Monday. The city's water treatment plant, located adjacent to Yellowknife Bay, is pictured above. - NNSL file photo

A new pipeline would cost $20 million and water from Yellowknife Bay would cost significantly less, at $5 million. But concerns have been raised about the potential of dangerous arsenic levels in the bay.

During a Municipal Services Committee meeting on Monday, councillors heard a presentation from administration that goes over a 2011 report detailing scientific information about Yellowknife's drinking water and potential pros and cons of the two water sources.

"Even if we were to draw from (Yellowknife Bay), the recommendations will still be to put in an arsenic treatment process," said Chris Greencorn, director of public works and engineering, who made the presentation to council.

Because Yellowknife Bay is downstream from the Giant Mine, he said there are also more frequent testing requirements due to the potential of an arsenic breach.

The report also states that arsenic levels in the bay are below the 10 parts per billion that is allowable in drinking water. That said, arsenic in the sediment of the lake is ten times higher than the allowable drinking water limit. In a hypothetical scenario where arsenic is released from Giant Mine through pond tailings and makes its way into Yellowknife Bay, the report indicates the water would be able to handle a low level of contamination because the arsenic would be diluted.

But because of that possibility, it recommends using an iron absorption filter, which would process the contaminated water and remove the arsenic.

"I certainly want more science," said Coun. Niels Konge, who had requested Municipal Services Committee have the discussion on Monday. "When you start talking about a capital project that is worth $20 million, I think you really need to have a conversation about whether or not it is necessary. Is it something that we need to have or is it something that makes us feel better? . Based on what I have seen and read, not just from council, I think we can safely draw water from the bay," he said.

"But I'm not an expert . this is a very important issue. You don't want to screw up drinking water."

During the meeting, Coun. Adrian Bell wanted to understand the strength of a risk assessment in the report that determined a low probability of a spill.

"Do you believe that the risk assessment that was done as part of that report was a comprehensive and fulsome risk assessment? Is there another type of study we can have done that would be working with the Giant remediation team and just independent engineers and whomever and do up a professional risk assessment?" he asked.

Greencorn said he believed the team was significantly involved with Giant Mine.

"We have strong contacts that we can work with within the current Giant (mine) team," he said, adding he would look into the matter.

The councillors left the issue with administration, asking for more information.

'Anything else is really reckless'

Georges Erasmus, a former national chief of Assembly of First Nations, showed up to the meeting to protest the idea of going with what he called a "cost-saving" solution, by drawing water from the bay.

"I think we really need to seriously consider just staying with the pipe," Erasmus told council. "I honestly don't think there is anything more important than putting that pipe back in its place. Anything else is really reckless."

He urged MP Michael McLeod to assist the city in finding the $20 million needed to lay a new water pipeline under the Yellowknife River, something McLeod said he would prioritize when he was running in the federal election last fall.

In a telephone interview with Yellowknifer, McLeod reiterated he would support any decision the city made about its drinking water.

"I had indicated that I would support the city with some of the investment it would need in infrastructure and the water line was one (.)," he said. "I indicated I would support whatever decision they would make . if they were going to make a submission to the federal government for funding."

He added that the federal government has committed significant support for municipal infrastructure funding in the 2016 federal budget.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.