Readers Comments

Munster Community Association

Newsletter - January 2003

30th Annual Munster Winter Carnival

"2003, Munster Mardi Gras"

February 7th & 8th, 2003

Presented by the Munster Community Association

President’s Report

Stop!

Don't toss this Newsletter in the recycle bin! (At least until you've read it!)

No really' If you've never read one of these newsletters before, you should start with this one. The City of Ottawa is going to decide on a sewage treatment solution for Munster shortly, so now is the time to decide if you have an opinion, preference or problem with the proposed alternatives. We at the MCA (and the City for that matter) need to know your feelings right now. Soon it will be too late to express yourself so take just a little time to review the situation. If you have anything to say, it is very much a case of “speak now or forever hold your peace." Once they start implementing the new system it will be too late to complain that you weren't informed, or that you didn't know it was going to be done a certain way. At that point I will tolerate NO WHINING! I have to believe we are closing in on the end of this saga, so pay attention and hang in there just a little while longer. We'll tell you what is going on first, and then tell you how to get in touch.

30th Annual Winter Carnival

Just before continuing, you should know that the MCA is putting on our ever popular Winter Carnival, so after you get through the sewage stuff; read on ahead to find out what the schedule of events is.

The scoop on the poop

So here is the scoop on the poop. As I've documented in previous newsletters (for archives, see http://www.munsteronline.ca, under Community Association), we have been awaiting the results of a third and final engineering consultants review of the options and techniques used to evaluate them. The report (done by R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.) was delivered to City staff and released to the public on the 16^th of December, and was something of a surprise to many who have been following the issue closely. Remember that this report was prepared for the City in response to a requirement from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that the City have an independent review done of the last consultants report (done in 1999). The OMB had stipulated that only three technologies be considered this time, a pipeline, a mechanical treatment plant manufactured by a firm called CMS, and a Snowfluent system manufactured by a firm called Northern Watertec. R.V. Anderson's mandate was to review all the work that had been done to date, interview the parties involved, re-examine the evaluation criteria, and make a recommendation as to how to proceed.

So what was the result?

In a nutshell, all three alternatives were rated so closely that the report states: "…all the alternatives have merits that could support their selection as the preferred solution. The corollary to this statement is that all three alternatives also have features and issues associated with them that need to be overcome if they are to be successfully implemented. In other words, all will work, but none are perfect.

It is not that R.V. Anderson did not try to identify which would be "the best" solution. Indeed, they tried a number of statistical techniques that I won't bore you with here, but in the end they concluded that any of the three could be made to come out the winner just by re-jigging the criteria a little bit. As a result they concluded that: "the debate should not continue on the -battleground of the evaluation matrix. If a clear solution were out there, the amount of detail that has taken place in debating this issue would have revealed such a solution before this point in time. Therefore, it is assumed there is no clear answer that will likely come from more refinements to this matrix."

So after declaring what amounts to a tie as regards to the merits of the solutions, the report goes on to say that their estimation is that the pipeline is the most costly alternative, and on that basis it should be

"screened out of the process". It follows by saying that "if cost were an equal factor, the balance of the other environmental criteria would put this solution on a par with the two communal solutions."

The consultants concluded that the Snowfluent system would be their pick for the preferred solution, but then noted that picking just one solution presents the City with a big problem. The original competitive bids from back in 1999 have long since expired, so the City would have to go back and get another quote, this time from a sole source without competitive pressure to keep the price down. This is clearly not a good thing, so the consultants suggest that CMS and Northern Watertec be asked to re-submit competitive bids. Now here is where I wind up scratching my head. They've stated that the only reason to screen out the pipeline option is its’ anticipated cost. Then they note that a competitive bid process is necessary to ensure that the City gets the best possible price on a solution. Surely it makes sense to invite the pipeline solution vendors to re-submit competitive bids as well. What would they have to lose? It doesn’t cost the City anything, and there are at least 4 contractors who can bid the pipeline. Just knowing that they’ll be sharpening their pencils will certainly keep the two proprietary solution vendors on their toes. If the pipeline emerges from the tender as prohibitively expensive, fine, but there is certainly no reason to eliminate it prior to getting the actual bids.

MCA's Position

The position of the MCA has been to avoid debating the faults and virtues of the individual technologies because such controversy fuels antagonistic and negative publicity in the local press. This in turn is detrimental to our sense of well-being and our property values. Now this study basically says that such debate is ultimately futile anyhow. We do however think that the City would be better served to include the pipeline alternative in their RFP (Request for Proposals), and then to give careful consideration to that solution in their decision process.

You may remember that in the June Newsletter I noted that there "are residents who are very passionate about the Pipeline alternative, and they've criticized me for not doing enough to articulate the advantages offered by their preferred solution." Well as you can imagine this latest report has caused them a lot of concern. They note that the "special interest groups" have been slandering the pipeline solution in the local media for several years now, and that local residents may not have heard both sides of the story. I agree. They are all well-informed local homeowners, and as sensitive to sensational publicity as I am, so they are reluctant to take their story to the press. As a public service, I have invited them to produce a flyer for local distribution outlining their views. Look for it shortly after you receive this newsletter. Listen to what they have to say.

Wellhead Protection Study for Munster

I must admit that they (the pipeline proponents) have a point. Sometimes even the most flawed propositions, if repeated earnestly and often, can gain credibility and become accepted as fact. As an example, the anti-pipeline lobbyists have been claiming for some time now that the pipeline alternative was ecologically bad, because it "exported water outside the Jock River watershed". This was at best a very dubious statement. The total flow from waste discharge in Munster amounts to less than l/500th of the total annual flow in the Jock, a trivial trickle, as it were. Further, we draw water from a deep aquifer, not from surface water that would otherwise have flowed to the river. Now, thanks to the recently completed Wellhead Protection Study for Munster performed by Golder Associates we know that the water entering our aquifer originates outside the Jock River watershed anyway. It has absolutely no connection with the surface water hereabouts. In fact, if one were both anal-retentive and ecologically rigorous, one could make the case that we should NOT put our used water back in the Jock when we are done with it.

Red Herring

Thus the whole Jock River watershed issue is a complete red herring. Being without merit one would have thought that it would have no impact on the sewage treatment alternative selection criteria. Incredibly though, it is mentioned many times in the R. V. Anderson report. For example, criteria #1.2 in the document ranked the three alternatives on their impact on surface water resources, and it scored the pipeline lowest because "it removed treated effluent from the Jock River watershed". I can only say that I am very impressed with the ability of the anti-pipeline lobby to get such a piece of nonsensical eco-babble so completely accepted as fact just by repeating it over and over again.

Even though I don't agree with this particular assessment point, I do agree with the consultants' conclusion that spending a lot of time arguing over these individual criteria will not lead to a clear winner. My concern is it will just antagonize and alienate everyone involved, something the media loves to cover, but not something that benefits Munster homeowners. The MCA's position has been that any of these solutions will work, and which you prefer depends on your perspective.

Right now City staff are studying this report and they will draw up recommendations for the Environmental Services Committee (consisting of City Councillors), which will in turn make recommendations to the entire City Council for approval. We can submit our concerns, suggestions and opinions to staff, and indeed have already communicated with them on a number of specific points (such as this whole Jock River watershed thing). Our main objective, as I've already mentioned, is to ensure that the pipeline option will be included in the RFP. Beyond that, I think it is fair to say that ones enthusiasm for the Snowfluent solution is inversely proportional to how close you reside to the

snowmaking apparatus. I also think most of our members would prefer a solution that did not involve

expropriating any individuals property.

When the matter comes before the Environmental Committee, it is my understanding that there will be an opportunity to make a short presentation. What I would like is an indication of how Munster residents feel on this issue.

Do you have an opinion? Do you really like one alternative? Really hate another?

Please let us know what you think. Once the issue goes before City Council, there is no

opportunity for further public input, so if you have something to say, don’t delay. Go to our website www.rnunsteronline.ca, and there should be a link to send a message to the President (that’s me!). Include at least your name and address, as I'm only interested in hearing from Munster residents. For those of you who are not online, you can call the answering machine at the Community Centre (838-2666) and leave a voice message, or write to me at P.O. Box 159 Munster, but if at all possible, please use the web. We will take note of your concerns when preparing our presentation, and as well we will pass them on to Councillor Janet Stavinga, but feel free to email her directly if you want.

I thought it might be helpful if I outlined a very brief and very personal summary of the pros and cons of the three alternatives. I've deliberately left out most of the technical details, and stuck to well established points.

Pipeline

Pros

- Ready to go in terms of permits, environmental assessments and all the other regulatory paraphernalia that needs to be put in place

- Doesn't bother local landowners or residents

- The City already runs this type of solution in other locations, so it fits well within their technical and administrative infrastructure

- It has a very long life-span (70-80 years) relative to the other systems, so there is no chance that we will have to go through this rigmarole again,

Cons

- Some Richmond residents are concerned about the currently proposed routing, and how it's construction will affect their property

- Needs one lagoon to be rehabilitated and left in operation

- Some risk of cost overruns during construction.

- Contract plans and route selection still need to be finalized

Snowfluent

Pros

- Proven ability to meet discharge requirements for the Jock River

- Doesn't bother any Richmond residents

Cons

- Impacts the quality of life of residents living nearby because of the noise of snow-making operations

- Will require some additional land near the existing spray irrigation field, so local landowners may be forced into giving up part of their property.

- Continues to use the existing spray irrigation fields during the summer months (when you obviously can't make snow).

- There is some concern that local wind conditions would lead to problems in operation, since the"snow" cannot be allowed to blow offsite. This in turn could cause issues in obtaining the Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE.)

- City staff have no experience managing this sort of operation (either on or offsitc.)

- Needs two lagoons to be rehabilitated and left in operation.

CMS mechanical plant

Pros

- Doesn't bother local landowners or residents

- Doesn't bother any Richmond residents

- Doesn't need lagoons, but does need "wetlands" (i.e. the old lagoons) to deal with high flows during spring.

Cons

- It has not consistently met the stringent discharge requirements for the Jock River, even in pilot projects. As a result, the Ministry of the Environment (MOH) would probably grant a conditional Certificate of Approval, and then monitor the system for compliance. A secondary treatment process might have to be implemented, and from what I hear this process unfortunately also has no proven track record for meeting the requirements.

Webmaster needs some help

I've certainly gone on for long enough on this particular issue, and I just have one thing more to say. Our Webmaster, Mark Hillsdon, could use a hand keeping www.munsteronline.ca up to date and relevant. Would anyone who might be prepared to help out please contact him and offer your services. Just hit the web page and click on the feedback- button; he'll get the message,

Blaine Agnew

Put in simple, human terms: One hour's worth of oxygen might represent 1/1,000,000 of the total lifetime requirement for sustaining Mr. Agnew's existence. In his words, "a trivial trickle". But depriving him of that oxygen for one hour would be so catastrophic, his need for further oxygen would be removed for eternity. Harvey Snyder
Richmond
(March 5, 2003)