|
The
recent bulletin and flyer contained somewhat misleading
information neither founded in science nor on the existing
wealth of information available in thousands of pages of
technical documentation about Munster’s sewage project. In the
interest of maintaining our vibrant progressive community with
the advantages of the most modern amenities, it is again
necessary to make some observations about the remarks in these
communiqués. A few of the most unfortunate remarks have been
reproduced here in bold along with factual commentary.
We at
the MCA (and the City for that matter) need to know your
feelings right now.
The April 2002 survey was
keenly embraced by Munster residents. An overwhelming 83%
indicated they preferred an onsite treatment plant. This was a
result of receiving even the most fundamental of factual data.
Sadly, 93% said the City had not asked for their opinion
before the survey, and 97% said the City had given them no
information on the alternatives.
It
follows by saying that ‘if cost were an equal factor, the
balance of the other environmental criteria would put this
solution (a pipeline) on a par with the two communal
solutions.’
A pipeline is estimated to cost
up to five times the communal system and is more costly to
operate on an annual basis. The hidden implication in this
statement is that Munster residents would not care about the
potential contamination of Richmond wells from pipeline breaks
such as the five that have occurred in the Richmond forcemain
so far. It is unlikely that this is true.
Surely
it makes sense to invite the pipeline solution vendors to
re-submit competitive bids as well.
It is difficult to comprehend
such an unjustified statement! Particularly as the City just
spent $179,000 on another study to conclude a pipeline is
completely inappropriate. Is it responsible to commission a
study only to ignore its recommendations?
|
|
l/500th
of the total annual flow in the Jock, a trivial trickle
The Jock River Watershed Plan
published by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority states:
“Groundwater discharge to the Jock River is the main
contributor to streamflow in the late summer. Groundwater is
therefore important in maintaining the health of the aquatic
ecosystem during low flow conditions.” Munster’s high
quality flow would benefit the Jock River when it needs it the
most.
“(the
pipeline is) Ready to go in terms of permits, environmental
assessments and all the other regulatory paraphernalia”
Incredibly, the pipeline route through
Richmond has never been provided by the City for public
comment and consultation. This alone makes the Environmental
Assessment incomplete and legally invalid. R.V. Anderson’s
report disclosed that the proposed route would impact the
Richmond Fen. This requires a Wetland Impact Study. A
Certificate of Approval is required and the threat to Richmond
resident’s wells will be challenged vigorously in this
application.
It (the
onsite plant) has not consistently met the stringent
discharge requirements for the Jock River, even in pilot
projects.
The technology has been
extensively proven under the direction of the New York
Environmental Protection Agency. It has demonstrated the
ability to exceed discharge criteria by a margin of over 200%.
The MOE granted a Certificate of Approval in 1998 for an
identical plant and discharge criteria, in Manotick. It is now
under construction.
- | -
Finally,
if ever you have questions on this matter, I would be more
than pleased to provide the facts or put you in touch with
technical experts who can.
- | -
|