I did not know until today that there is a huge aquifer below Vancouver. According to wikipedia, “an aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock, rock fractures or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well. The study of water flow in aquifers and the characterization of aquifers is called hydrogeology. If the impermeable area overlies the aquifer, pressure could cause it to become a confined aquifer.” The Vancouver aquifer is fed from somewhere up the Fraser Valley as it has been leaking under considerable pressure for over six months.
As per the linked Vancouver Sun story “For more than six months, millions of liters of water a day have been flowing out of the ground at 7084 Beechwood St. onto public property, prompting concerns about erosion and the possibility of a very large sinkhole that could affect several homes. Despite efforts by the homeowner and consultations with hydrogeologists to halt the breach, the leak has only increased in volume from 800,000 liters a day to more than two million liters. It is now so serious that the city has issued evacuation alerts for homeowners on either side of the property and says as many as a dozen homes could be ordered evacuated.” Full aquifer story continued here.
As you recall, last summer the wise city councilors of the City of Vancouver didn’t allow watering your lawn, trees or flowers, while Capillano water reservoir was still over 55% full. Now, of course it is super full again after the torrential rain falls this winter. Surprise. It is raining in Vancouver in the winter. Did they not get the memo that Vancouver is not California ?
Summer usage and reservoir readings are here. Metro Vancouver manages three watersheds, each with a water collecting reservoir, to provide almost 2.5 million residents with a clean, reliable and affordable supply of drinking water. The watersheds are closed to the public for protection from pollution, erosion, fire and other hazards, with the exception of registered tours.
But hurry, let’s disallow water use for the few dry months to show who is really in charge in Vancouver. And of course, no talk of water metering for single family homes anytime soon. Like parking, I guess. [squatting underground ?] Just a flat fee, whether 5 people use the shower daily or a single occupant. But of course, no watering your lawn by the single senior who might have a bath once a week while next door the 3 teenagers have 1/2 h shower each, daily, and 2x/day on sweaty weekends.
This is called good governance ? Where is the media or public outrage at this silliness ?
But back to the aquifer. As you can see in the map above, there are quite a few in BC, due to our mountainous terrain and heavy rain fall. A good overview of them is here in this BC government report. The parks department apparently has been tapping into it for 25 years to irrigate its Langara golf course, taking pressure off the region’s treated drinking water supplies. Golfers apparently are more important than home owners even in Vancouver.
Since I could not find a lot more on this Vancouver aquifer, and since it is still gushing over two million liters per day 6 months later I suspect that we need far more insights into this important water source below us. Perhaps more time and money spent on this important resource right under our nose rather than global warming research about the “climate” in 100 years is a better use of scarce public $s ?
The social engineers know that frightening people gives them more power. Liberal use of fresh water is equated by these bureaucratic ideologues with profligate waste, such as washing cars or watering golf courses. It’s what capitalists do, so as good socialists we must frighten them into stopping. Last summer I had a conversation with a Vancouver Parks Board employee that admitted that there was loads of water but they were instructed to let trees die of thirst to “send a message” to the the stupid public. It’s all in the same boat as backyard chickens, recycling your poop, hairy legs and kale. The scamming socialists have the floor right now and they are giggling like children, but, like everything, they will be thrown out soon enough.
LOL I call bullshit that the Parks board instructed people to let trees die to send a message.
The guy dribbling a token splash on mature trees thought it was bullshit too. He said that if rain didn’t come very soon many of the trees would die. This was near to Science World.
Eric, isn’t the Park Board controlled by the NPA? Is that who you are referring to as “scamming socialists” who know that “frightening people gives them more power” or is it some other group?
Author
Park board is 3 NPA, 3 Vision and one Green to my knowledge.
Not even close – 4 NPA, 2 Greens and 1 Vision
The Park Board Manager is Malcolm Bromley. We can be certain that the manager makes the daily decisions, not the Board that meets only occasionally.
You know, the guy that got on the wrong side of Charlie Smith of the Straight.
http://www.straight.com/news/vancouver-park-board-has-lot-learn-about-enhancing-media-access
You know, the guy that won the Harley Davidson motorcycle.
http://www.vancourier.com/news/park-board-accused-of-playing-grinch-with-staff-1.774017
He’s been here in town for about five years now. I’ve never met him, have you?
Thomas, did you know that our water in summer comes from melting snow and not from winter rain? The water which is in the reservoirs now will have gone down the rivers long before next September. I heard recently that this winter’s snowpack is close to normal, so we shouldn’t have severe shortages next summer like we did last summer.
But yeah, why not water meters? People should pay for their use of a scarce resource, after all. But installing water meters — that would be a new tax, or it would sure look like one, and we know what people think of new taxes these days. At least we should have a referendum before doing it.
But let’s suppose the water meter project is a go. Now you’ve got to install new meters on several hundred thousand houses. And are we going to hire new employees to read these meters? Not on your life. They’ve got to be smart meters like the ones BC Hydro put in a few years ago. You remember how popular they were, right?
But let’s suppose we get the meters installed and running. Now we have to figure out how much to charge per unit of water to deter people from using too much of the stuff. The rates would have to be higher in dry summers to persuade people to conserve water, too. But inevitably the rates would be guessed wrong to start with and various bad things would result. Probably it would take ten years to find out what rates work right.
It would be nice if the new per-unit rates produced higher revenues than the existing fixed rates, so that the surplus could be directed to improving access to water. But no doubt a promise would have to be made that changing to the new rates would be revenue-neutral, so that probably wouldn’t happen.
Having said all that — it’s all “status quo bias”. Given a choice of sticking with what we have versus changing to something else with unknown costs and benefits, people are more comfortable with not changing. That’s true of politicians too. So I believe things are going to have to get a lot worse before the water meters start showing up.
Author
“green” to me means resource restraint, i.e. not only being mindful but also using less of what we do or what we use in our daily lives: food, energy, oil, material or water !
Being mindful implies one can measure it, then price it, then reduce it.
I get it that MetroVancouver once has only a few hundred thousand people and water per capita was plentiful. Today, 10x as many folks use the same water. It implies we have to be more careful.
Persuading others to believe that Vancouver is the greenest city when we do not even meter our water (or most of our parking, or road use) is a contradiction to me.
But I guess a few more bike lanes will do the trick. Many new condos (such as the one I live in) do not even require water meters. That is green ? Is this the 21st century ?
I don’t understand the claim that there is no metering of water in Vancouver. Perhaps not on the UEL where you live, Thomas, but that isn’t Vancouver. From the City website:
Water meters are an important step that will help the City to reach its goal to be the greenest city by 2020.
Water meters need to be installed into:
•All newly-built single and dual family homes
•Existing residences that are being renovated or rebuilt
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/water-meters.aspx
Author
I understand that in Vancouver’s tens of thousand of homes (that are not being renovated) no meters exist nor are required. Also referred to as vote buying, like parking. Squatting, in the water ..
That’s not a great analogy. They pay for water anyways, it’s just a flat tax, like a subscription. The pipes are what actually costs the most money after all.
If you look at that chart, you’ll see that the combined storage of the reservoirs never got below 50% last year. MV is incredibly conservative when it comes to their estimates.
Yes, my house doesn’t have a water meter. If it were bulldozed and rebuilt (which it will be when I sell it) then does the new house have to have a meter? It looks like the answer is yes. It sounds like a good idea to phase in water meters that way, but the lifetime of a house in Vancouver seems to be 70 years or more so that’s going to be a slow process.
Requiring water meters to be retrofitted into existing houses? When my electric meter was replaced by the new smart meter it wasn’t a big deal, they just showed up one afternoon and did it. I assume the cost of that was rolled into our electricity bills. But that was a replacement; putting in a new water meter in a 60-year old house with dodgy infrastructure could be a bit more expensive.
However if they had shown up to install a water meter when my outside drains had to be replaced a few years ago, that would have made a lot of sense. Perhaps that’s another avenue the city could use to get meters installed in the existing housing base.
Hi Thomas, if we tapped that 2 million litres per day… it would amount to a little less than 1 litre per person per day, or less than 1% of what average per capita use is currently. Better than 0 but hardly worth spending a lot of money on.
If we tapped more than 2 million litres per day, great, but then one day it will be empty – what then?
I don’t think there is any Vancouver politician who doubts the benefits to all of water metering. However the fear of disturbing voters still living out a 1950’s fantasy is palpable. Rather than throw brickbats, why not suggest some plausible strategies for getting the public onboard with market pricing of water and parking? Are you saying that if you were running for office, water metering for all and market priced parking would be headline planks in your platform? Do you think you’d win?
Thomas, let’s follow your logic here.
Statement of problem: there is too much water flowing out of the aquifer, causing dangers with sinkholes.
Your proposed solution: take more water out of the aquifer.
Go back to the drawing board.
Author
I have no idea what to do with an aquifer, as I am not an expert.
I just disagree with curbing water arbitrarily as we have LOTS, and I disagree with not metering water if we pretend we are so “green”.
Obviously we need more insight into this acquifer issue. Any person with insight is encouraged to add insights here, or add a new post.
Yes, we have lots of water. Check the weather forecast if you disagree.
What we don’t have is lots of purified drinking water, available at the specific time we need it, and at the point we need it (delivered to the property line), with the infrastructure able to handle the peak delivery demand. That all costs money. Stop thinking about the water, and start thinking about the infrastructure to make it possible to have clean water delivered where you need it, when you need it.
Completely agree. also need to mention that all that infrastructure has been built up for more than a century and is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. And it’s publicly owned.
I love it when people get all upset about something and then when their logic is questioned, they hide behind “not being an expert”.
If you’re not an expert, then how did you determine that the limitations are arbitrary? How did you determine that they’re in place to “show who is really in charge”?
Our apartment in the Olympic Village has a water meter and we get a monthly bill for cold water, hot water (heated by the local NEU), and heating. There was a big uproar when they started charging but I think most people are used to it now.
On average, my wife and I use 2500 L of water per month which costs us $8/month (plus a separate $10/month metering fee). I like having our water metered, but for water conservationists like us it costs more for metering than the water is worth.
$10 a month for metering. Wow. You can buy a water meter for less than $15. Someone is getting the money to flow, like water. Are these the same guys that charge for sending a bill too?
Enerpro … my water bill is usually about 1/3 of my metering charge … which seems a bit of an odd ratio.
Is that $10/month metering fee for all utilities or just water? Or does NEU just charge for water and you get separate bills from Hydro, etc.?
Enerpro does the billing for the NEU, which includes hot water, cold water, and heat.
My gas is like that — I always seem to pay much more for the pipleline fee than the actual gas I use (mostly for cooking, but also heating).
I live in an older house and we get charged a flat fee of $771/year because we have a basement suite so they charge for 2 dwellings. $8/month or even $18/month seems cheap in comparison. $18/month is $216 per year which is less than 1/3 of what I pay. I would love to have metered water.
When I moved here I noticed how much waste there was, both of water and wood. Big timbers in 8×8 size, that are not even available at lumber yards in the rest of the country were thrown in a dumpster after having been used once for a temporary structure. Water just flowing around here and there for any old reason or not.
Then I discovered that we get charged a flat rate for water here. That was surprising to me.
I think they should phase in water meters. Start with all new buildings, then all renovations, then a program to change the old ones over time. It could take ten years or more but that’s okay. It needs to happen. It can still be a bargain but right now there’s no incentive to use it wisely.
Well this should make you very happy – you just described what the City is doing right now. All new construction and renovations require water meters. (Not to mention that commercial & industrial users are already metered.) http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/water-meters.aspx
Oh cool. I didn’t know about that. Thanks.
and a G&M article from last year with a brief summary of various BC municipalities:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/experts-call-for-increased-use-of-residential-water-meters-in-bc/article25816045/
Two more thoughts…
A lot of the debates get sidetracked by focussing on some imaginary “cost” of the water itself. As we all know, in our part of the world, the water is all but free.
However while nature gifts us with water, it does not gift us with infrastructure. We can build as much more as little infrastructure as we wish to provide fresh water, but if you want low taxes and small government, then you want a region where, per capita, people use a little water rather than a lot – the latter will require more pipes, more treatment plans, more staff, more pumps etc. Regardless of where the water comes from, we still have to build infrastructure and the size and cost of that infrastructure will be in direct relation to how much we use. When I hear people complaining about not being able to use unlimited water, my first thought is, “oh, so you are in favour of increased taxes to pay for the infrastructure that unlimited water will require?”
Finally, your headline suggests that evil politicians “cut off” the water, when no such thing was done. All that happened was that some of the very highest impact (litres per capita per day) uses of water were required to be cut back. Perhaps you still feel this is unfair in some way but consider that in a metered water world (which I support) households facing real water costs for the first time would cut back on exactly those high usage items. The mechanisms may be different but the outcome is the same – in neither scenario is a person of average means going to pay the costs to maintain massive watersheds, damns and treatment plants, then have treated potable water pumped through miles of pipes and carefully monitored, only to use for grass.
Hey Editor. I appreciate the bold experiment of having your most persistent contrarian provide guest posts for week. I have been resisting the urge to reply, mostly because I have been enjoying the access to a different bubble. We are all in our selected bubbles, Thomas, Eric, Gordon, me. The bubbles we are inside are so well reinforced by our certainty and the self-selected voices we hear around us that the occasional poke from another bubble hardly gets heard. It is fun to look inside another bubble and see that that atmosphere over there is so completely separate than ours, that we are not even breathing the same air. People like Thomas are astronauts, putting on a breathing apparatus and diving in to the hostile atmosphere of Price Tags (for adventure? to learn? Just for shits and giggles?) and we should applaud him for providing the cultural exchange that makes us all better listeners and learners.
Well Said
I agree. I find he’s not as out there as it seemed on some things as it had appeared before from just reading a few comments. He’s had some experiences that I haven’t had and it has influenced his viewpoint.
The same could be said of anyone really.
I too enjoyed Thomas’ stint as guest editor.
Our watersheds are part of the Commons. Billions have been spent on developing a vast, publicly-owned potable water distribution network over the last century to serve the Metro. The population has grown quickly, and will continue to grow and put increasing pressure on the system.
When over 40% of the potable water supply was used merely to keep lawns green in summer, which resulted in record drawdowns in the early 90s, something had to be done. Ergo restrictions. Since then the green lawn factor uses “only” 25% of our summer drinking water supply. I suppose you can call that progress. BTW, brown lawns are not dead. They are dormant.
However, that figure is completely outrageous when you consider an average Vancouver roof sheds about 150,000 litres of rainfall during an average winter. The average per capita water use in the Metro is about 285 litres per day, and residential use consumes 60% of the supply. The remaining portion goes to industry.
In other words, with an average of 2.2 people per household in Vancouver consuming about 625 litres per dwelling a day, their roof runoff alone could feasibly supply all their domestic water needs for eight months. Folks on the Gulf islands are now collecting, filtering and disinfecting rainwater for most domestic uses, but also use well water for gardens and flushing toilets. Some are even collecting grey water from bathtubs and sinks for non-potable uses.
With the ongoing separation of sewers into sanitary and storm water systems, the Greenest City could very well afford to study district, neighbourhood or block-level storm water collection and distribution systems using storm water while also contemplating district heating and energy. Eventually, large underground cisterns (100,000+ litres) could be placed in parks for neighbourhood non-potable water collection from the storm sewers and distribution to the neighbourhood, after filtering. The Metro already places reservoirs in parks which often have tennis courts or lawn placed over them.
Alternatively, smaller underground cisterns (3,000+ litres) could be placed underground in each backyard during new house construction, or during major renovations, to capture roof runoff. These systems could be used for many non-potable uses like watering lawns and flower beds, or flushing toilets. This will divert about 1/3 of household indoor water consumption and the majority of outdoor residential use in summer from the regional potable water system, and save hundreds of millions in additional infrastructure costs (with their increased taxes) over the decades as the population grows.
Tapping the aquifer may not be a good idea on a mass scale because as it loses pressure, the hard glacial till cap holding the pressurized water in may collapse in the weakest spots (the city fears this too in this particular case). There is also the issue of tapping a resource where the limits are unknown. Like oil, it is not infinite, or always easy and cheap to get. With the hard-packed till often just below the surface and a few metres thick, infiltration may be minimal and replenishment slow, and the resource could get tapped out quickly. I know in most areas there is a very low capability for the ground to absorb rainfall or redirected stormwater flows once it’s saturated down to the till layer. In my tiny backyard, that’s only ~40 cm down.
Calgary has had metered water for a few years now. Some friends I stayed with last June complained that it costs them over $100 / mo. even with their low flush toilets and low flow shower heads. I believe the price structure is a reflection of the diminishing glacial water source in the nearby Rockies, the population growth, and the previous higher levels of waste. In spite of the global warming denial expressed by the author of the lead post above, there is no denial that our mountain glaciers in BC and Alberta have lost nearly 40% of their mass on average over the last century. This was determined from direct measurements, not modeling or theoretical conjecture.
Western Canada faces more drought in future, and even in Vancouver where it rains all winter, the summers are some of driest in the nation. We must use our water resource more judiciously and tap our deep wells of innovation to devise ways to conserve, collect, store, distribute and use it more efficiently. Anything else is an abuse of the Commons.
Aha! Now we have the gospel. The gospel according to MB and cohort. “Western Canada faces more drought in the future …”. Get on your knees and pray baby ’cause a hard rain’s, not gonna fall. Ergo; we must slow down the use of, well, of everything – including water.
We must be “judicious” and “conserve” and “collect” and “store” and “distribute more efficiently”.
Of course, watering lawns is, to some, naughty. Plenty of social engineers will tell you that. Yet, there is a cogent argument that lawns are actually integral for a green and healthy society. New strains of grasses require less water and much less mowing than ever before. Grass absorbs that nasty CO2 and breathes oxygen that is essential for life.
Grass is like coffee, one day it’s bad for you then the next day it’s good.
How can you be the Greenest City, in the Official Rain Forest region of the country that has the largest supply of fresh water in the world, without grass?
The Romans came late to the aqueduct, they were beaten by the Egyptians and the Greeks but they still managed to build them 2,700 years ago. Will we ever become as civilized?
“Yet, there is a cogent argument that lawns are actually integral for a green and healthy society.”
You should point us to someone who is making that argument. It ain’t you babe (since we’re mangling Dylan lyrics).
It’s simply stating fact. A 2012 study by the University of Pennsylvania found that converting vacant lots into green ones, which consisted of grass and trees, reduced crime and made people feel safer. A separate study by environmental and energy consultant Ranajit Sahu found that, “for the average, managed lawn,” turfgrass captures “significant amounts of carbon”.
In the greenest city it will become law that lawns are planted and maintained to capture carbon and promote well being.
“If you care about your children’s safety, mental health, physical development, community engagement, and the future sustainability of our planet – natural playgrounds are the most important and intelligent choice you can make. Is there Art, Music, and Nature in your playground?”
~Adam Bienenstock, MBA
CEO & Founder
“The separation of children from nature is one of the greatest and least appreciated crises of our time. Through his transformative natural playgrounds, Adam Bienenstock has become one of the world leaders in reconnecting children with nature.”
~Scott D. Sampson, Ph.D.
Paleontologist and Science Communicator – Host of the PBS Kids Television Series “Dinosaur Train” with over 9 Million monthly viewers.
“Nowhere is it more important to create nurturing outdoor spaces for children than at Early Childhood Education facilities and Daycare Centres.
Decades of research have proven the positive relationship between natural play and cognitive development. ”
Earthartist – Guelph, Ontario.
Stonebrook’s natural playground includes an actual stone brook, trike path and garage, stage, tree stump benches, garden classroom, foot bridge, music and art space, sand bunker, labyrinth, a wood play house and store, a mound with built in slide and tunnel, picnic area, plus lots of grass, plants and trees!
Hmm, if you don’t understand the essential difference between a ‘lawn’ and the examples of natural space and built environments you claim bolster your argument I don’t know what to tell you. I note that the maintenance of lawns, partic. with gas powered blower, mowers, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and ignoring that reality nullifies your claim further.
Before you all pronounce yet more solutions to another imaginary issue take a moment to look at the map above, read the legend, and ponder the meaning of “non-drinkable”. Hint; corrosive saline brine trapped during the last ice age.
@Keam. Some people are just aging dinosaurs and ignorant of new developments. I can understand that they just don’t know what to say.
What is NoMowGrass?
NoMowGrass is a short growing lush green grass with less watering requirements – developed for your growing zone. In Canada, grass is available in a soft bent grass with side-way growth habit. Southern and hot sunny areas have the option of a blend of 50% bent grass with 50% alpine fescue to withstand drought. With a NoMowGrass lawn, you can spend more time enjoying your yard and less time slaving over it!
Talk about nullifying.
Unless you have a cost-effective, workable plan to replace existing lawns with your miracle grass Eric, it’s largely irrelevant. Nor does its existence prove your original contention “… lawns are actually integral for a green and healthy society.” Conflating playgrounds with lawns? Sorry, that’s a fail.
Prove to me that existing lawns capture more carbon than they currently emit through mowing, fertilizers et al, and then you might start to build your cogent argument. I’ll point out that in a recent conversation with a friend that works in landscaping on a local golf course, he sadly noted to me that they are putting as many chemicals into their fairways and greens as ever. So I think your wonder-grass has a big hill to climb.
Somebody’s already done your homework for you Eric.
“Clearly, with all these factors in mind, there is no way that conventional lawn – lawn treated with pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, lawn that gets frequently watered and mowed – can be considered a carbon sink. We are a society that excels at failing to grasp the big picture. The only way to believe Scotts’ claim that lawn is “a good foot soldier in the fight against climate change,” is if we ignore the entire carbon-spewing lawn-care process that the turf industry so avidly promotes.”
http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/is-lawn-a-carbon-sink/
Chris, I know you like to always be right but times have changed and your buddy on the golf course might also be a dinosaur. They even make cars that have zero emissions.
Let me help you here. Ever heard of Treehugger?
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/6-grasses-for-low-maintenance-drought-resistant-lawns.html
Please defend your original statement with some kind real data Eric. Let me help you here:
“there is a cogent argument that lawns are actually integral for a green and healthy society.”
cogent: (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.
lawn: an area of short, mown grass in a yard, garden, or park.
society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Please make that argument instead of name-calling directed at myself and others.
thanks,
Chris – a quick Google of carbon sequestration shows many scientific studies of grasslands, turf grass and lawns.
Yes Frank, I understand. But are lawns an ‘integral part of a green and healthy society”? Seems ludicrous to me to make such a claim.
Chris: Perhaps you like paving paradise and putting up parking lots. That doesn’t surprise anyone. We are a tolerant society and accepting, to a considerable degree, of asphalt lovers.
This is a blog with commentary, not a student debating room. I don’t respond to being implored to ‘defend’ and simple and well understood tenet of civilized society.
If you would like to learn you could Google ‘Parks and Wellbeing’ where you can peruse a plethora of informative articles and discussions on the subject of green spaces and physical as well as mental wellbeing, among other things. There are literally millions of links. You could also learn from Google Scholar about Parks and Lawns & CO2 capture.
Eric, when did my point about watering lawns (which are also mown, drugged up and otherwise obsessed over) morph into a nature walk in your head? You are making my point that currently 25% of Metro collected, treated and distributed drinking water is wastefully used to keep lawns green. These people are not planting the drought-tolerant species you listed (an ancient technique, BTW) and think that golf course green is the only landscape aesthetic.
And when climate denier extraordinnaire Eric starts advising others to Google CO2 capture, well, it makes one laugh about your claims about social engineering.
Chris – nope. I personally think front lawns are wasteful of precious urban space, promote isolation from neighbours and due to their generally poisonous weed maintenance regime, quite contrary to a healthy environment. But I also understand that children love to play on them and a lot of people value them more than I do.
Lawns as we know them are in no way a natural space. To make that argument is just silly. They are important and fun to play on, but are the single least natural thing you can put in your yard other than paving it.
Important to define lawns here too. All grass is not created equal.
Eric:
“This is a blog with commentary, not a student debating room. I don’t respond to being implored to ‘defend’ and simple and well understood tenet of civilized society.”
I understand. You made a dumb comment that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’d run from it too. Thanks however. Your behaviour serves to highlight the pointlessness of expecting some individuals to stand behind their claims, esp on the Internet where there are no consequences for spreading nonsense. Your original comment was ridiculous and subsequent attempts to deflect only serve to highlight that fact. Clearly my time is better spent on more productive and cerebrally challenging activities than expecting you to make a reasoned argument for your position. I think I’ll go clean the bathroom.
Author
It continues to leak and the city maybe on the hook for $10M+ as CIBC forecloses on the home, with owner AWOL: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/city-on-hook-for-10-million-damage-costs-in-vancouver-aquifer-breach
Ouch …