Strong disagreement is worthy of attention, only when there are reasons and rationales put forward for one's consideration. Anything less, is likely to be considered mere diatribe, to mask another agenda. The flyer's absence of hard scientific supporting data causes the reader to wonder what could be the possible "other motives" for being "passionate" about a pipeline?

1.) Blind support for the City's (Councillor Stavinga's) pipeline preference, regardless of the excessive costs, environmental negatives, potential health risks, and in spite of it going against the majority of residents' wishes?

• Counter Argument 1.): There are many historical examples to show reason for critically examining all City Staff and Political decisions, (i.e.: the Ottawa South Collector fiasco, and the $15-million already wasted on Munster ...plus potential for $15-million more!).
• Counter Argument 2.): Regardless of City Grants to Community Associations, it does not remove our right to question, when we see something drastically wrong with any of their policies. (Better to not accept Grants, if we are to deem ourselves "bought", and lose our freedom of speech.)

2.) The "NIMBY" (Not-in-my-back-yard) approach?

• Counter Argument 1.): "We are all downstream." If we are to take an ecosystem approach to help mitigate ever-increasing pollution, we have to do more wastewater treatment at source (i.e.: communal).
• Counter Argument 2.): We should consider the negative impacts of the pipeline on our neighbours in Richmond, as if we were in their place. (Remember the gentleman who spoke at the December 16th Munster Meeting, whose home is opposite the Richmond Pump station, and what he said of the present situation there. Munster's septic sewage through the pump station will make the problems 10-fold.)

3.) Blocking the potential for future growth, by creating inferior sewage handling capability?

• Counter Argument 1.): What if we build a pipeline with inferior capacity, (to prevent expansion), and ground water infiltration continues increasing? We could find ourselves in an "under-capacity" dilemma, ---sooner, rather than later--- for more and more spring flow periods. (Wouldn't that look good on us!)
• Counter Argument 2.): For the very reason (of our rural community's charm and beauty), that we want to keep its size at its present level: if we do it with a pipeline, we will be FORCED to retain the one longstanding blight on our community ...the hated lagoons. With an onsite treatment plant, the lagoons could be decommissioned as sewage works, and made into a pristine wetlands/conservation area!

4.) ???

CLOSE PAGE