An open letter to the Mayor of Ottawa, 
Ottawa City Council and The Ottawa Citizen

      I, as a 27 year resident of Richmond, take exception to the comments
attributed to Councillor Stavinga and Mr. Hewitt in Mr. Fekete's Ottawa
Citizen (September 24, 2003, pages C1 - C2) article concerning the Munster
Hamlet forcemain to and through Richmond. Councillor Stavinga insists that
City Council is "... responding to the needs of waste treatment."  I
believe this statement is misleading as it implies that the forcemain route
to and  through Richmond is the only solution.  Mr. Hewitt implies that
Richmondites should stop acting like spoiled brats and accept the forcemain
as the cost  "... of being associated with an urban environment."  This
statement is dismissive of the legitimate concerns of Goulbourn Ward
residents regarding their health, their financial well being (i.e. resale
value of homes), the care of their tax dollars and the well being of their
environment. (Alternative treatment technologies appear to be available at
much lower costs than a forcemain, but that is a topic for another day).

      I have emailed Councillor Stavinga's and Mr. Ryan Matthews' (Senior
Project Manger) offices for information on this issue but I have not
received a response to date. When politicians and/or their bureaucrats do
not respond to queries, raise one cautionary flag.  I tried to discuss my
concerns about openness and transparency regarding the forcemain to and
through Richmond with Councillor Stavinga at the Open House on the 23rd but
her response consisted of baffle gab. When I mentioned the Munster lagoons,
she quickly directed me to the City's lagoon consultant even though no one
was waiting to talk with her.  When politicians take evasive action, raise
a second cautionary flag.

      Background: In a June news release from Councillor Stavinga's office,
it states that "the selection of a route to the Richmond Pump Station was
the result of an evaluation of route alternatives completed in 1999 as part
of an Environmental Assessment process... the evaluation included the
creation of a Public Liaison Committee (PLC)... (which concluded) ... the
route to Richmond was selected because it had the highest score in each of
three independent evaluation methods." What Councillor Stavinga's news
release does not indicate is that the Ontario Municipal Board then stepped
in and told the City to hire an independent consultant to evaluate the
solutions for Munster Hamlet's wastewater.  RV Anderson Associates Ltd. was
selected to undertake this evaluation.  They recommended onsite treatment.
Subsequently, the City signed a second contract with RV Anderson for
$47,000, seemingly for the purpose of reevaluating their initial report.
This time, RV Anderson concluded that a pipeline was best and,
consequently, the pipeline was again presented as the only solution for
Munster's wastewater.  The five routes the PLC were asked to consider
included two routes through Richmond, two routes into Glen Cairn and a
fifth into Stittsville.  Only the routes into Richmond would result in
placing the forcemain close to a large number of wells, as Stittsville and
Glen Cairn have City water.

      A Goulbourn microbiologist told several Richmondites that she was
approached by Councillor Stavinga to serve on the PLC.  The microbiologist
told Councillor Stavinga that she supported onsite wastewater treatment
and, when she subsequently wasn't asked to be a PLC member, she believed
that her stated preference for onsite wastewater treatment was the reason.
Hearing this, I was concerned about the openness and transparency of the
decision process related to this issue; namely, the selection of the PLC,
the selection of the forcemain route, and the awarding of the second RV
Anderson contract .

      The PLC consisted of City consultants, Councillor Stavinga, three
Munster residents, at least one Stittsville resident and one Richmond
resident.  It seems to me that Councillor Stavinga's participation on the
PLC was inappropriate and possible a conflict of interest. That aside, the
PLC was asked to evaluate five forcemain routes as to impact upon the
natural environment, cost, interference with existing utilities, impact
upon residents, and capacity of existing sewer systems. I have asked
Councillor Stavinga for the evaluation criteria and whether a risk -
benefit analysis was undertaken, but no reply.  The benefit side of the
equation is the same for all five forcemain routes.  However, the two
forcemain routes to Richmond are the only ones that have a significant
impact on the "natural environment"; i.e. going under the Jock River,
through the Richmond Fens, and passing through an area with a high
concentration of wells. Consequently, any leak in the forcemain to Richmond
could readily contaminate the aquifer and the shallow Richmond-area wells.
The other forcemain routes would traverse dirt and/or rocks.  When a leak
occurs in such a geological environment, the chance of appreciable
environmental contamination is minimal and, if the City's central
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system works as well as Councillor
Stavinga contends, the risk is zero.  Consequently, either of the three
non-Richmond routes entails a dramatically reduced risk to the health and
welfare of Goulbourn Ward residents and their environment while reducing
the City's potential liability (a.k.a. as our tax dollars) following a
leak. While one City employee at the Open House considered that a leak in
the forcemain would be a catastrophic event, a City consultant considered
it to be a foregone eventuality. With this divergence of opinion, why take
a chance?

      With regard to risk, all European Union and North American regulatory
and health agencies use the "precautionary principle" when evaluating human
health risks, meaning it would require a believable catastropoic event for
there to be any appreciable human health risk.  The City's evaluation of
the Munster forcemain situation has dismissed the precautionary principle
since the forcemain's route to and through Richmond maximizes the risk to
both the environment and Goulbourn Ward residents who have wells in
proximity to the forcemain. It also maximizes the City's liability when a
leak occurs.

      The installation costs of the forcemain to Richmond may be lower than
the other three routes, due to the somewhat shorter distance, but the
actual cost is largely unknown at this time.  There is the possibility that
the initial cost for all the forcemains could be comparable depending upon
what "mitigation measures" have to be utilized to "... further ... ensure
the integrity of the pipeline...in the environmentally sensitive areas..."
of the Jock River and the Richmond Fens (Councillor Stavinga's news
release, June, 2003).

      In conclusion, it is my opinion that the forcemain route to and
through Richmond represents the greatest risk to the environment, human
health and the welfare of Goulbourn Ward residents and represents an
unnecessarily high cost to be "... associated with an urban environment",
as Mr. Hewitt would say.  Any of the other three routes represents less
risk for both Goulbourn Ward residents as well as the City regarding
liability, while still allowing Councillor Stavinga and City Council to
respond to the need for waste treatment in a manner that I believe is the
most acceptable for the greatest number of Goulbourn Ward residents.

Doug Arnold
Richmond