Richmond Village Association

P.O. Box 4 Richmond, ON K0A 1B0

The Richmond Village Association (RVA) urges you to consider the following realities, ask the RVA questions, and draw your own conclusions.

• There is no advantage of any kind for Richmond with the pipeline solution. There is only risk and disruption.
  
• There are at least two other proven systems that could treat the sewage on location in Munster and return swimable quality water to the Jock River, and our local aquifer. Water that we will need.
• All but a few of us draw water from shallow wells that are an average of 50 feet deep.
• The pipeline will pump water that is currently entering our aquifer, across the city to a treatment facility in the East End. There is a risk that this depletion will dry up our shallow wells.
• 400 houses in Munster will be hooked up to the sewage capacity serving Richmond. The city, and our councillor insist that this will have no effect on village growth. That simply doesn’t make sense, especially given the capacity study that was done for Richmond several years ago.
• The aquifer from which our water comes is vulnerable to contamination from many surface or underground activities.
• Unlike the sanitary sewer system currently serving Richmond, the sewage pipe which the city proposes to dig-in across the whole of Richmond, is a forcemain, under pressure, with a very real and demonstrable probability that it will break and rapidly spew contamination to threaten our water supply and our health.
• The City has ignored the results of all but one of three full studies, the first and last of which rejected the pipeline, while the second was intended to examine onsite options only, but somehow concluded that the pipeline was the only "solution".
• The last full study by an independent consultant was ordered by the OMB, and it discarded the pipeline option in favor of onsite solutions.
• The onsite options have been proven in hundreds of installations in the U.S. and Europe. On the other hand, the forcemain from Richmond to Glencairn (which is not in proximity to shallow wells) has failed several times since its installation.
• The RVA believes that it is better to be downstream from a sewage treatment facility that delivers safe water to the Jock River, than to have raw sewage running through the village in a pressurized pipeline, waiting for an accident to happen.
• No Environmental Assessment has ever been done for the route through Richmond.
• When the pipeline route to Richmond was "chosen" there was only one person from Richmond on a committee of about seven, three of whom were from Munster. It was apparent that the underlying agenda was to select the shortest route, which was to Richmond. It is unacceptable for such decisions to be taken without proper input from and consultation with Richmond and en-route residents.
• The manufacturers of either onsite treatment solution say their solutions would be up and running sooner than a pipeline.

It is long past the time when the City should have informed and involved Richmond residents in this matter, which has the potential to affect our health, our water supply, and the capacity for growth in the village. Despite repeated requests to our councillor over the past year for wide dissemination of information about the pipeline option, her office has refused, saying it would alarm us prematurely because no decision had been taken with respect to whether the solution would be onsite treatment in Munster, or the transport of raw sewage through Richmond.

When a city staff report surfaced indicating that only the pipeline would be considered (a simple yes or no vote by council) our councillor finally revealed her position as a unconditional supporter of the pipeline by appearing before committee and arguing for its approval. All this without a single consultation with the people of Richmond.

At that point the RVA launched a petition on very short notice and succeeded in presenting 680 signatures to council. Our councillor publicly dismissed our petition as "not true" and tossed it aside at the council table. Every one of the signatories (but no one else) received a personally addressed letter from Janet Stavinga telling us to get on board, arguing her position with partial information and alarmist rhetoric seemingly designed to lead to assumptions and conclusions that are simply put, not true.

If you are concerned, its time to be heard. For further information call: 838-3572 720-0664 (Harvey Snyder) 838-5389 (Ted Brown) 838-2056 (Bruce Webster)