Results of Richmond Survey, July 2002

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the residents of Richmond for their enthusiastic participation. Sincere appreciation is extended to LENNSTROM’S YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER, AGRIDENTIAL, McREA BROTHERS, and FIND-A-CAR for providing convenient drop-off points for residents.

Objectives of Survey
  • Assess the awareness level of residents regarding the City’s plan to build a pipeline from Munster through the village;
  • Assess the level and quality of information provided by the City;
  • Determine the level of publicity that ruptures of the Richmond forcemain have received;
  • Assess the level of concern resident’s have about the safety of wells and water quality if exposed to a new high pressure sewage pipeline and associated construction activities;
  • Rank evaluation factors: watershed, environment, cost and time to build;
  • Assess cost sensitivities; and
  • Determine the interest in growth and concern about the collateral impact of a pipeline.
    •

    Development of Questionnaire

    The questionnaire was developed by concerned citizens and the Friends of the Jock River with input from the Richmond Village Association. The preliminary questionnaire was sent to Councilor Stavinga’s office for comments and input. None were received. As the size of Richmond posed an issue regarding distribution and pick-up, Canada Post was used for distribution. A range of convenient return options were provided to enhance the response rate. Consultation with the RVA delayed the survey into the busy holiday season. Nevertheless, the response rate of 279 returns or (23%) is excellent. By comparison, the evaluation criteria weights developed by the City that resulted in the Richmond route being chosen for the Munster sewage pipeline were based on representation from a single Richmond resident.

    The Results

    The large number of responses means the results from the survey are accurate to within ±5% (19 times out of 20).

    The first question established years of residency in Richmond.  

    Residency Time

    Percentage

    Less than one year

    5%

    1 to 5 years

    15%

    5 to 10 years

    12%

    Greater than 10 years

    68%

    A sequence of questions determined the awareness level for the City’s pipeline plans as well as the sources and quality of information provided. (56%) of residents knew about the proposed pipeline, leaving a large proportion (44%) that did not. The mechanism used by the City to inform residents about this issue was ineffective. Most residents (57%) specified the newspaper as an information source. Virtually all residents (96%) indicated they were never informed of the pipeline route through the village. The cost for the route through the village, a high expense portion, was not considered in the alternatives evaluation process. Virtually all residents (94%) wish to be involved in any future pipeline plans that may affect Richmond.

    Four questions dealt with the current Richmond pipeline to Glencairn. The new section of pipeline installed under the Jock River in November 2001 ruptured this June. Most residents (76%) were not aware of this latest rupture or any of the previous three (96%). During the survey, it was learned that this new section had also ruptured in December 2001 only one month after its installation. The justification for this new pipeline given in the City’s report was "enhanced reliability and backup." Neither objective has been met in practice and sewage was twice more diverted to the lagoons in the Richmond Conservation Area. The cause will likely not be provided by the City as requested.

    Few (22%) knew the City was currently upgrading the Richmond pumping station in preparation for the proposed Munster flow even before the ongoing peer review is complete. An overwhelming number (82%) expressed deep concern that additional flow from Munster could cause a flood event in Richmond such as the one that occurred recently in Glencairn. A group of Glencairn residents have initiated a class action suit against the City as a result of this flood. And, (82%) indicated the Richmond Conservation Area should not be an integral part of the City’s sewage works.

    Domestic water in Richmond is supplied mostly by private wells (86%). A small section (14%) known as the Glen has communal wells. Because many wells lie along any path the pipeline would take, the degree of concern about the safety of water supplies was assessed. An overwhelming (85%) of residents indicated they were very concerned about damage to their private wells from construction and (91%) indicated they were concerned about the ongoing safety of their water supply if the pipeline was installed.

    The major factors that should be used in the evaluation of sewage projects were ranked by residents.

    Factor of first choice

    %

    Keeping clean water in the Watershed

    71

    Environment

    19

    Cost

    7

    Time to build

    3

    Clearly, residents want the watershed protected first and foremost. This was further supported by 77% of respondents, stating that they thought an onsite plant in Munster would benefit the Jock River. The order of these factors was the same in the Munster survey. The City has circumvented the purpose and intent of the Environmental Assessment process by ignoring this public priority in their own ranking process.

    It was important to see what residents felt about the cost factors and who should pay for the pipeline. Fully (67%) indicated the City should pay no more for a pipeline than for an onsite treatment plant. Given that the pipeline capital costs are in the $12-$15 million range according to Councilor Stavinga’s office, and the onsite plant is $3.2 million, the pipeline is not fiscally responsible. The City recently indicated it is $5.3 million short of funds for sewers (2003 Budget comes up $61 M short - Ottawa Citizen July 11, 2002). The integrity of the City’s planning, budgeting and contracting process is questionable. (43%) of Richmond residents indicated Munster should pay for their own sewage treatment solution. Only (19%) indicated all taxpayers should pay for the Munster solution.

    Finally, residents expressed their growth preference for Richmond and whether Munster’s sewage might be a concern relative to property values. The vast majority (90%) want growth with a mix of residential and commercial development. (80%) indicated they would be concerned about property values if adding the Munster sewage flow impeded Richmond’s development.

    Unsolicited comments written in on the survey

    • "Munster should have their own onsite treatment site. Why would anyone consider taking that amount of water (sewage) from here to another location?"

    • "Why not an onsite treatment plant in Munster?"

    • "Keep Munster sewage in Munster."

    • "All my life I helped build Richmond – not some City planner"

    • "How did the City manage to keep this (recent rupture of pipeline) secret?"

    • "The City denied this (planned pipeline from Munster to Richmond) when I asked."

    • "I happened to be on Castlefrank when the (Glencairn) flood took place. I sat in my car on a sidewalk for 1 ½ hrs. unable to move – it was a very, very scary situation."

    • "Is this project going to carry on until the pipeline pros get their way? Build and fix onsite."

    • "The water table in Richmond is usually very high which could cause many problems to wells if a sewer main were to break or leak! Problems Richmond residents don’t need."

    • "Munster wishes to export its problems to us – this is not fair, nor just."

    • "Treat the sewage in Munster. There are good wastewater treatment systems – aeration system – manufactured by Japanese firms. Hire better consultants!"

    Recent editorials in the Stittsville News

    A number of editorials have appeared as a direct result of the survey. The Stittsville News did not contact any of the organizations or individuals involved with the survey at any time before printing these editorials. Therefore, the editorials are without the benefit of both sides of the story bringing into question the utility of such an information source. The apparent lack of balance in these editorials gives cause for concern relative to the nature of the reporting on such complex matters of community concern. A letter to the editor regarding the first editorial was not published.

    Some of the information omitted from the editorials is provided under the following headings as they appeared in the paper. More detailed information can be found and your comments can be submitted at www.OttawaSewergateFiasco.com.


    Headline: "RVA does not endorse pipeline questionnaire - Stittsville News (SN) July 17, 2002"
  • SN: "The Village Association had been asked for its support of the questionnaire but declined feeling 
           some of the questions were too biased."


    •
  • Response: On June 24, Ted Brown, RVA President, received a draft of the survey and sent it to members of the RVA board and Councilor Stavinga for comment. On July 2 a meeting was held with Ted Brown to discuss any comments. Comments were minor. He was more concerned about the cost and the control of the distribution of results. Based on the prospect of even further delays and the City’s continuing work on pipeline related activities, participation by the RVA was declined by the survey group and not the RVA. The RVA neither endorsed nor objected to the survey. The full cost of $700 was born by the concerned citizens.

    •
  • SN: "..the RVA cannot speak for the whole village on this matter because many in the village may not care."

    •
  • Response: Is it within the purview of a village association to prejudge the position of its constituency on matters of primary importance or is it to actively seek input? The pipeline route to Richmond was decided with no meaningful input from the residents.
    •

    Editorial Headline: "Questionnaire about sewer pipeline - Stittsville News July 17, 2002"
  • SN: "..construction disruption in the village …could be a good thing, as the streets being torn up for the pipeline installation could be replaced with a new road surface…"
  • Response: This implies Richmond residents do not deserve improvements to their community in the normal course of development as a consequence of the taxes they pay every year.

    •
  • SN: " ..the exact route the pipeline would take in Richmond is not known at present."


    •
  • Response: The City has been forced by the survey to admit this simple but critical fact. Therefore, the City does not know the real cost of the pipeline vis-à-vis the cost to tear up and replace the Richmond streets. This is one of the major cost factors for the pipeline among the many not determined before the City compared the available treatment alternatives.


    •
  • SN: " ..the pipeline could also impact some future growth in Richmond…."


    •
  • Response: This fact has also been obscured by the City until the survey was done. How many houses will be removed from Richmond’s future growth by adding Munster’s 480 houses to a sewer system that has overflowed before?

    •
  • SN: "Then, (after calling Janet Stavinga) when you think you have the answers that you need, you can fill out the questionnaire if you so wish. In this way, the questionnaire will reflect a responsible reaction ….and will not be a knee-jerk reaction…"
  • Response: Telling taxpayers they need permission from the local Councilor before independently exercising their inalienable right to free expression is a dangerous form of political interference. Suggesting that the public would otherwise be irresponsible is at the very least condescending.

    • Conclusion

    Punctuating the findings of the Munster survey, the residents of Richmond have expressed unquestionable support for an onsite sewage treatment plant in Munster. This view has been expressed not in the form of a "popularity contest"- as the City’s new consultant recently characterized it - but with clear and thoughtful reasoning. Protecting the watershed and environment while at the same time implementing this most cost effective and timely solution is endorsed by a clear majority of taxpayers as the only responsible course of action. The City’s recent Aquifer Vulnerability Study completed April 4, 2001, concluded the groundwater in both Munster and Richmond has medium to high vulnerability to contamination. The deep concerns expressed about a pipeline are, therefore, justified. A pipeline is seen as a serious threat to the integrity of wells and, consequently, a threat to future public safety. In addition, an onsite plant will protect property values by allowing both Munster and Richmond to meet the stated objectives of the residents - not those of the distant City planners.

     

    		  

    HOME  |  BACK