OMB Public Participation Session
Monday, April 3, 2000


A truly independent Professional Engineer's Opinion:
From Public Participation Session - Monday, April 3, 2000:

The following letter, Evidence # 202, from the Public Participation Session is specifically included, here, for several reasons:
   ●  The author of it is a resident of Munster.
   ●  He is a highly respected, contributing member of the Community.
   ●  He is a Professional Engineer.
   ●  He was not paid by the City to tell them what they want to hear.
   ●  He has no vested interest, or hidden agenda.
   ●  He has Munsters' interests at heart ...seeking that which is best for both the Community and its Environment.

(Excerpts):

   

Mr. Katary,

Chairman, Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding Munster Wastewater.

I have been following with great interest for a long time now, the discussions and presentations regarding treatment of wastewater. I have also attended several presentations at Munster Public School and submitted written comments because I am concerned with achieving the proper solution.

I am unable to present this submission in person due to another commitment Monday and am only able to deliver it in person. I hope you will receive this and read it.

I expect you will be familiar with the solutions proposed and discussed over the last several years. It is my concern that the current proposal is not the best solution for the needs of the Munster area.

I believe that by removing water from the area from which it is drawn and not returning it will, over time, lower the level of the water table. This in turn would affect the water supply of residents in the area and possibly the Munster main wells themselves. It would be more that a shame if wells would need to be deepened in the future. 

Additionally, the proposed solution would deprive the Jock River of water it needs in the critical periods to support water life, waterfowl, and related dependent species. This past year is a very good example of this situation – the water flow and level were extremely low last summer. It is in years such as this that it is important that some, if not most, of Munster’s treated wastewater be directed that way. One year, with part of the Jock River’s water source reduced, could spell disaster for some of the life in the river.

From what I have read on the subject of wastewater treatment including that supplied by CRA, the Township of Goulbourn, and the Region of Ottawa-Carleton, I am firmly convinced a local solution is in order and possible. And this solution does not include lagoons. I have submitted feedback to CRA regarding this. 

It is possible to treat wastewater locally with minimal or no use of lagoons and return quality, low impurity water to the environment. Several technologies exist to perform this, to be reliable, to be expandable if required, and to be cost effective in operation.

It concerns me that the proposed solution has so much potential for impact in several areas. The pipeline solution, in addition to removing water from the area, imposes on the pumping and pipeline facilities of Richmond. The proposal requires off-hours evacuation from Munster because of the loading in Richmond. The Region are prepared, if there is a problem with the system (Richmond and/or Munster) to use the lagoons for storage for up to 20 days.

The proposed solution also imposes on wetlands between Munster and Richmond. There will be disruptions to wildlife habitat in that zone during construction. Once in place it will be very difficult to detect most leakages that might occur for any reason. And it could be quite a long time afterwards that an impact would be detected and by then wildlife and the environment would be affected.

I am concerned also the proponents of a pipeline are not publicizing the fact that the lagoons will still be in semi-regular operation on an ongoing basis. It is my understanding that the purpose of a wastewater treatment solution is to eliminate the lagoons and their use and decommission them.

I urge you to study and consider the proposed solution with its drawbacks and impacts outside the immediate area. I also ask you (to) consider a viable solution of local treatment that includes decommissioning of the lagoons. It is my hope that the Board will find the latter offers the proper solution to this problem that has been studied for so long without resolution.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,

Keith Lindsay P.Eng.

 

 

 

 

(Highlighting Added)

 

More on the OMB Public Participation Session
Monday, April 3, 2000

The Meeting room (Goulbourn Council Chambers) was packed for the Public session, which started at 7:00 pm. There were 19 presentations, (17 voiced in person, and 2 written submissions – not read).

Of the presentations and written submissions :

  5 were from Munster ........................ (2
* for pipeline, 3 for on-site treatment)            
 10 were form Richmond .................. (0 for pipeline, 10 for on-site treatment) 
  4 were from other locations ............ (0 for pipeline, 4 for on-site treatment)
                                                           ===============================
                        
Totals: .................... (2 for pipeline, 17 for on-site treatment)

 

 

MUNSTER

RICHMOND

OTHER

PIPELINE:

2

0

0

ON-SITE TREATMENT:

3

10

4

 

*(It is worth noting that the 2 Munster Residents who said they supported the pipeline, when asked in cross-examination whether they would continue to support the pipeline if they found out that more-or-less continuous lagoon use was an integral part of the pipeline system. Both stated that they were of the understanding that the lagoons were to be used only for very brief periods during the year.)


BACK  |  CLOSE WINDOW