|
______________________________________________
Visitors' Comments:
The Concerned Citizens of Ottawa Group invite your comments.
Those who wish to come forward with information, (civic employees, and
others in vulnerable positions),
However, to ensure the veracity of the information we
receive, all email correspondence must have
This is YOUR chance to help change things for the better. INDEX PAGE | 2 | 3 | 4 | PAGE #5 | 6 | 7 | NEXT | BACK | HOME | CLOSE PAGE
- Page 5 -
RICHMOND RESIDENT RESENTS PIPELINE'S RISK TO WELLS
RICHMOND RESIDENT RESENTS PIPELINE'S RISK TO WELLS Richmond deserves better than to become the toilet-flushers for Munster, and to lose 500 homes worth of building capacity, in the deal. I don’t like the City’s secretiveness. The City seems to be doing a lot of work on the lagoons, the pump station, and the pipeline crossing of the Jock River, but I’ve heard nothing. Aren’t they supposed to do an Environmental Assessment for these things? We were supposed to know the pipeline route through Richmond within 90 days of Goulbourn Township ramming it through Council, in 1998, (Thank you, Janet Stavinga!). Four years later, we still don’t know the route. I don’t like the pipeline’s risk of pollution to the shallow wells of Richmond (potentially, mine included). I think each community should deal with its own sewage, now that there are technologies to handle it at source. When will we get some answers? Tim van der Horn ONLY ONE WAY FOR MUNSTER TO GET RID OF ITS LAGOONS With regard to the March 16th letter from the City sewage treatment plant worker, (?), it appears Munster residents may have been mislead. Although I’ve always favoured the on-site (mechanical treatment plant) option, perhaps a good many residents believed that the pipeline was one way of getting rid of the offensive lagoons. I realized Munster would always have "storage lagoon(s)" if the non-compliant pipeline option was installed. In light of the more recent information, however, I would fully reject the pipeline (with its lagoons) altogether, and feel that for the sake of the environment, and for the cost savings we would realize, the treatment plant is the only option we have. Jack Leith FORMER RESIDENT COMMENTS ON CITY’S WASTE OF MONEY Having previously lived there, I've been looking at the web site and am astounded that the councilors of Canada's Capital would waste money and ignore environmental considerations to the extent that they have, given today's emphasis on environmental responsibility and accountability. Apparently the decision was very clear in 1998 that a suitable solution was available for 3 million dollars. Looks like another case of political ineptitude resulting in millions being spent trying to implement a solution that doesn't even come near to being satisfactory. Get with it, Charelli, and stop acting like Alphonso Gagliano. The Munster sewer looks as bad as the helicopter deal. Anne Menard WHAT HAPPENED?
Public “desires” ---balanced by
cost-benefit analysis--- and all other considerations, should be secondary.
BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING I’ve watched this Website with growing dismay over the manner in which our City is handling the Munster sewage problem. Instead of squarely addressing issues of public interest, environment, cost, health and safety, the City appears to have an agenda that negates all of these. There must be something terribly wrong at City Hall when all that is good, right, and proper, gets twisted-so. I wish caring persons, with a better balance of political ethics, business acumen, and social conscience would be attracted to enter this field. However, things seem so bad now, I think the good people stay away. It would be heartening to see the demonstration of integrity, accountability, social conscience and responsibility by our elected officials and civic staff. Since this is not likely to happen anytime soon, it is vital that interested members of the public, with conscience, help take the City to task for some of its more nefarious activities —as your Website is doing. As long as good people silently stand by, and do nothing, bad things will continue to happen. Snooze, you lose! Frances Little OPEN LETTER to the Premier of Ontario
The Honourable Ernie Eves,
Premier, Dear Sir, The undersigned on behalf of the CRC appeals to you as a last resort for resolution of matters regarding pollution of ground water and drinking water sources. Our organization has monitored waste management practices in the Ottawa-Carleton Region over the past sixteen years. We were instrumental in the institution of measures to protect aquifers from leachate contamination from the Trail Road Dump. Over the last three years we have appealed two separate environmental issues - Munster Hamlet’s sewage disposal and Trail Road Waste Facility’s leachate/contaminated ground water disposal. We appealed three times to the office of the Minister of the Environment for bump-ups of assessments under the Environmental Assessment Act and twice to the O.M.B. under the Planning Act. Our purpose has been to have the (then) Region of Ottawa-Carleton comply with its own Official Plan which states - "Implement pollution prevention measures at sources where practical." (RMOC Official Plan, Pg. 136, Article 10.1.1, Item 15). These two matters, in common, pertain to the transfer of liquid waste; by sewer pipeline some sixty-five kilometres across the City. In the latter case the leachate has been found in independent research to be the second most toxic in Ontario. Munster Our bump-up request to the Minister, regarding Munster, was rejected but was not rendered in a timely fashion. The O.M.B. appeal on the same issue, but on a different principal, found in favour of the public interest by requiring the City to perfect its case. The decision rendered by the O.M.B. on the Munster matter even stated that the City Council did not have proper evidence upon which to base its decision. The City’s subsequent application to the Superior Court to set aside this O.M.B. decision, also found in favour of the public interest. The concept of returning reconditioned water back to a watershed from which it is drawn, rather than sending it 70 km, across town, in a polluted state, is accepted by Ontario as the environmentally sensible thing to do. It would be environmentally sustainable and it would be economically sustainable. Trail Road Our bump-up request to the Minister regarding TRWF, first made in November of 2000, was to have a decision rendered by March 2001. The Minister had not responded even by the time the O.M.B. concluded its hearing in the summer of 2001. The O.M.B. recently rendered a decision on our appeal dated 16 May 2002, after almost a year of deliberation. It allowed the appeal, in part - by ordering the removal of reference to the environmental suitability of the City’s solution. However, City of Ottawa and MOE officials have met privately and resolved to withdraw the “tardy” Environmental Assessment and resubmit a new one. Of necessity we re-appealed to the Minister for a bump-up of this second EA in November of 2001. We were told that we would get a reply in February of 2002. As of this date there has been no decision. The result of these actions is that the City has effectively bypassed the correct sequence for conducting a project. Ottawa-South Collector In 1995 the 7 km, Ottawa-South Collector was built for a cost of $38-million. Three months later the sewer had failed, completely, and required another $17-million to become nothing more than an "overflow" vessel. The Regional Chair, Bob Chiarelli at the time, stated in the press, "There's no question there was negligence. The question is whose negligence is it?” The public was never told. Looking back, the nightmarish reports on the Ottawa-South Collector - a $55-million fiasco – would suggest that the city had a fiduciary obligation to conduct an open forensic audit, and publicly document the accountability for that fiasco. This has never been done. A public investigation of the OSC disaster might have precluded later sewage infrastructure boondoggles such as Munster's: $30-million, and counting - ($13-million spent to date, plus the $17 million pipeline capital costs yet to be thrown away). Why then, must beleaguered ratepayers suffer the burden of additional expense, and lost time, in an effort to curtail the mismanagement of our city's sewage infrastructure, caused by the seeming incompetence of our city officials? This seeming mismanagement may contribute to the fact that Ottawa taxpayers pay one of the heaviest per capita tax burdens of any municipality in Canada. The continuing delay by the Minister of the Environment in responding to a legitimate application by Citizens of Ontario under the Environmental Assessment Act regarding Trail Road, despite specific evidence which shows incompetence by city officials and engineering consulting firms, reveals a callous disregard for due diligence. What is required now to stop this apparent "system corruption" from continuing, is the ordering of a top-down, Provincial Judicial Inquiry. There is gathering evidence that several cities in Ontario are experiencing the same “management”. We appeal to you Sir, to apply some “common sense” even if it’s not as trendy as it once was.
Ernie Lauzon, Chairman Shame on us!!! For several years now I have been watching the Munster Hamlet Sewer Debate, now on the web site, “OttawaSewergateFiasco.com”. As a taxpayer in Ottawa, I am disgusted with the waste of money, taxpayer’s money. All the information I have received would indicate that there was some confusion as to the method of sewage treatment that should be used in this particular part of Ottawa. A concerned group from the area brought forward some questions and ideas in this regard and has met resistance from our administrative people in our Municipal Government. I am totally amazed that the Government did not embrace ideas that might produce a better product at a lower price. Is this not what they are hired to do? I also hope that someone can tell me why people from the community must pay thousands of dollars of their own money to fight a process abuse that is being funded by their tax dollars. Individuals who get involved in this type of dispute have to spend their own money, hire their own lawyers and, even sometimes, (as in this case) go through the pressures and aggravation of being sued for great amounts of money. In my opinion, something has gone terribly wrong when concerned citizens have to live in fear of the very fact that if they are concerned and raise a voice, they will be persecuted for these actions. I guess the government lives by the adage that good guys finish last, should finish last and if they are not going to finish last we will do every thing in our power to make sure they suffer for it. Shame on us!!! Gordon R. Mott SEWAGE TOAST TO THE OFFENDING POLITICIANS!Re: News Item …Major Sewage Forcemain Break Occurs in Richmond: It seems people have to die first from neglect, inflicted upon them by self serving politicians, before these publicly elected individuals are held to account for their mis-actions. Why this had to happen in the first place, when the answer lay directly in their paths, (i.e.: onsite treatment plants …in case they don't understand the obvious), is a disgrace to their mandates. Since “We all live downstream”, someone …somewhere, has to eventually drink that stuff. Perhaps the offending politicians should be made to drink the first (post-spill) cup from the Jock River! Mark Q. Boisvenue
UNSOLICITED
COMMENTS RICHMOND RESIDENTS
LET'S DISCUSS THE MOTIVES ON BOTH SIDES
Sirs,
Having received numerous notices from your group, I
feel I must finally state my opinion.
I have long had concerns that your motives are not as
"noble" as you protest. The delays and fear-mongering that you have
instituted in the name of "environmental concern", are questionable.
A group truly interested in the environment and
proper use of tax dollars, would not have so thwarted the process of
solving such an environmentally sensitive project. Because of these
delays, millions of our hard earned tax dollars have been wasted so that
the interests of a few vocal "interested parties" could be addressed.
As well, the environment is constantly at risk
because the problem has not been properly dealt with.
The citizens of Munster would appreciate your working
towards a solution that has been decided on by the experts that have
been brought in to study the subject, and not the opinions of a few
amateurs with a financial interest in the solution.
I would also appreciate that in any future contacts
with myself or other residents of the area, you have the courtesy to
properly identify yourselves, so that we can see who is behind this
campaign.
Yours truly,
Sharon Treehuba
(Munster, December 13, 2002) REPLY Dear Ms. Treehuba, As I read your letter, it seems you are in need of some clear information. Admittedly, the names of some of the participants of our group are not made public because they or their families are dependant upon the City in one way or another. Others have professional practices, which they feel must be protected. The persistent rumour that some of our group have "a financial interest in the solution", (such as land development), is utterly false. One substantial land owner, who feels slurred by the rumour will be contacting you personally. Most residents are upset by the delays, and you can be assured that our group is equally concerned, and many members have spent considerable sums of their own money, and experienced much frustration trying to move the City forward, in a more timely fashion, with the right solution. If you had studied this website, you would have to agree that we have always put up well documented arguments, with factual evidence, and clear rationales. The ONLY argument that supporters of the Pipeline/Lagoon scheme (including our Councillor) can claim, is that they have complete, and utter, blind trust in the engineers on the project! That is a rather strange posture to take, given the City's engineering track record to date regarding Munster (CLICK HERE), and the Ottawa South Collector (CLICK HERE), plus many others; and given that the City, with all of its high-paid technical help, has not been able to come up with any cogent engineering rationales for why it is, so vigourously, fighting the public interest. While we agree with your statement, “Millions of our hard earned tax dollars have been wasted,” you are talking to the wrong people! You will have to ask the City a lot of questions about that …as we have been doing, all along. We have difficulty swallowing why the City would want to waste $17 million on a combined, open sewage storage and conveyance system, that could be better served by an unobtrusive, enclosed treatment system costing under $4 million, with additional benefits for the environmental concerns, and without the attendant risk to resident-users of 140 shallow wells, that would be continuously exposed by a pressure forcemain ---with a history of rupturing (CLICK HERE). Furthermore, we are perplexed as to why the City would go to such extremes, attempting to fulfill this absurdity, by additionally wasting more than 13 million of taxpayers’ dollars (in sewage hauling, multiple “studies”, etc.), before even getting started. However, if you want to try to grasp an even bigger waste of tax dollars ...wait until you see the true amount of the Capital Cost, combined with Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost of the pipeline/lagoon scenario, versus that of an onsite treatment plant. The 75-year Lifecycle Costs for a pipeline/lagoon option would be in the order of $23 million, verses $5.9 million for on-site treatment; (Reference: Independent Citizen's Review; Pages 24-36). There is something very twisted, here, and “we” plan to continue, until we completely uncover the whole sordid picture, and those who are responsible! In a couple of statements in your letter, you appear to speak as if you know what the citizens of Munster want. Yet, the Survey that was conducted in April, and hand delivered by twelve of your neighbours, (fellow residents of Munster and area), showed that 83% of those surveyed, want an on-site treatment plant. They want water to be kept in the watershed and not piped to another location. So I would have to disagree with your claim, that the residents want what the “experts” want. The fact is: nothing could be further from the truth. Moreover, the April Survey represented an overwhelming majority: 73% of Munster households, (VIEW APRIL SURVEY), while, the 1998: Second Study (if you’re still counting them), only sampled 8% of the Munster households! (It’s hard to believe it was that low, but you can review the Conestoga-Rovers Associates [CRA] Report and do the math, yourself.) In closing, let me shed some light on our “group”. They are ordinary taxpaying citizens, like yourself, but, individuals who have taken time to conduct extensive due diligence, and have been increasingly shocked by what they have been finding. We, collectively, are trying to do something about it. That’s the only difference. If you have a genuine interest in learning more, please review a recent document added to the website: the 107-page, “INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S REVIEW” ...and write back if you have other questions, or would like to meet some members of the “Citizens Group”, to discuss ALL the issues, over a friendly cup of coffee, or two. We appreciate your concern ---if you are seriously interested in getting to the truth. Sincerely,
contact@OttawaSewergateFiasco.com RICHMOND SUPPORT
(Re Richmond Survey):
As a resident of Richmond - this
concerns me. Unfortunately we were away in the summer and didn't come
across the survey in time, and missed the deadline. Dave Sproule
OUTCOME
WAS OBVIOUS ---AND PREDICTED--- After a thorough review of the latest consultants report on Munster’s Sewage, it is utterly obvious that my letter of November 10, 1998, was “bang-on”. That letter was delivered verbally and in written form to the councilors at a Regional Public Meeting held in the School at Munster. It is submitted herewith in its entirety. Had my advice, which is consistent with established tendering and contracting practices been acted upon, an on-site treatment plant costing $3.12 million would have been up and running by September of 1999. Yours truly, Gordon Sample
“Mr. Chairman and Councillors November 10, 1998 My name is Gordon Sample. I reside at 7861 Franktown Road, my farm abuts the lagoons and sprayfield. I have been an observer of the politics of the lagoons and have been in their shadow for almost thirty years. I have stood before R.M.O.C. committees previously maintaining that a sewer had been promised and a sewer we should have and not as a branch of Richmond. My concept of a sewer is the old-fashioned gravity type envisioned in 1970. Minutes from the R.M.O.C. Planning and Environment Committee dated 20, 21, and 22 May 1997 report that I urged the committee to include provision in the Wastewater Master Plan to de-commission the Lagoons immediately. My urging was not acted upon. Now an amendment is required. I should state that I am a member of the Public Liaison Committee but am not in support of the Consultants Report. I am a dissenter to the report. Why?
Then there is the matter of costs. It appears to me that R.M.O.C. has spent in the order of two million dollars since 1988 (when R.M.O.C. surveyed the route to Richmond) on consultants, staff time and land purchases. During this time the practicality of a sewer, of the old fashioned type, was as plain as the nose on your face. C.R.A.’s work confirms that a sewer could have been installed years ago, however, in my mind a sewer from Munster would be a mistake in the year 2000. How much more time and money will it take to deal with Munster’s long overdue sewage problem if R.M.O.C. accepts the solution proposed by C.R.A. How much more will it cost for consultants, planners, lawyers and what will construction costs be in two or five years? The C.M.S. bid virtually puts a cap on time and costs. I have not until recently been a supporter of on site treatment however, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal from C.M.S. represents a reasonable and attractive answer for Munster. It appears to be the lowest bid essentially meeting the R.F.P. dated June 2, 1998. Soil and geology conditions are against Snow Fluent. Certainly the cost of $3,112,935.00 (which I have taken from the C.M.S., Pellerin memorandum, dated Sept. 23, 1998) is very attractive. I believe the bids for the sewer were unsolicited, and not contemplated by R.M.O.C.’s Requests for Proposals.(*NOTE: 2002 update, below) The bids for the sewer should have been rejected by C.R.A. and R.M.O.C. My recommendation is, therefore, accept the proposal from C.M.S. which seems to have essentially met the R.F.P. The C.M.S. response to the R.F.P. can be taken directly to the contract award stage without all the time and cost consuming details essential to the option recommended by C.R.A.. C.M.S. appears to be prepared to get on a fast track and that is very very important. R.M.O.C. should put in the legal papers in place and ensure that the necessary schedule of performance-bonds and penalties are in place. Make the contractor responsible for getting the necessary approvals from senior levels of government, contract with C.M.S. for them to run the plant for a reasonable number of years. But, be in a position to hammer C.M.S. if they fail to meet the specified criteria of performance. Among other criteria the Jock River must be respected. As far as I can determine, C.M.S. is a responsible, experienced and well managed company, capable of meeting their obligations to Munster, R.M.O.C., and senior levels of government. Thank you Gordon Sample”
(*) NOTE - (December 27, 2002): It has been learned subsequently that the City surreptitiously invited selected contractors to submit bids on pipeline proposals …a very questionable ---if not unethical--- practice under accepted tendering procedures.
(YOUR COMMENT HERE)
INDEX PAGE | 2 | 3 | 4 | PAGE #5 | 6 | 7 | NEXT | BACK | HOME | CLOSE PAGE
|