CITY MISREPRESENTATIONS

MISREPRESENTATION #1:
It’s OK to pollute …just use a bigger river to dump it into.

Councillor Clive Doucet:
“I’m not sure I understand it. We want to take Munster sewage 60 km. to ROPEC, to treat it only to secondary level, then discharge into the Ottawa River; when we have the alternative of an on-site treatment plant that would treat Munster’s wastewater to tertiary level, for local discharge into the Jock River.
What am I missing, here?”

Dave McCartney, P.Eng., Operator of ROPEC:
“You have to understand that the Ottawa River is a very large receiver. It can easily handle the excess nutrient.”

Educated Public Response:
Daah! The City of Ottawa should be moving briskly in the direction of tertiary treatment of its sewage. Edmonton and Calgary are shining examples of enlightened cities that have already done that. Ottawa, which is not heavily industrialized, is going in a retrograde direction ---further and further away from the goal of tertiary treatment. Now, the City is even planning to pipe Trail Road leachate to ROPEC for pass-though to the Ottawa River with minimal treatment, instead of using modern on-site treatment technology, at Trail Road. 

Dilution should not be used as the solution to pollution.
Everyone is downstream!

It has been a huge mystery to environmentally conscious citizens why the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) idly sits by while all this is happening.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MISREPRESENTATION #2:

“Diversion of the Munster effluent is not significant to the Jock River, because it only represents 0.2% of the average annual flow of the river.”

Educated Public Response:
The bulk of the River’s flow obviously occurs during the spring “run-off”. From the peak flows in the spring it plunges to a small-sized stream for the remainder of the summer. In the last four years, in the Munster area, the Jock River has ceased flowing ---entirely--- in the period between late June and early September. The fish kill has been atrocious during such times as the isolated puddles dry up. Clearly, any steady flow from a treatment plant in Munster, (even if it reaches a low of 250 M³/day) would still represent 100% of the flow of the Jock River ---at that time--- and would be sufficient to maintain a healthy aquatic habitat in the river.

The relative proportion of river flow is not the measure used by professionals to evaluate the effect upon river systems. The 7Q20 is a measure of the lowest flow over a period over 20 consecutive years. Anything over the observed 0-flow in the Munster segment of the river would therefore be regarded as a benefit. Any competent engineer, versed in such matters, will more correctly refer to the “7Q20”, rather than the figure of “0.2%, or 1/500^th of average flow”, and, in looking over the data would very quickly verify the pivotal benefits of Munster's highly-treated effluent to the Jock River eco-system.

Similarly, anybody who supports the negative environmental impacts of the pipeline option over the environmentally protective features of the mechanical treatment option, in terms of significance to the health of the Jock River ...cannot honestly claim to be all that interested in environmental concerns. (Sadly, the Goulbourn-Ward 6 Councillor appears to be including herself in that group.)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MISREPRESENTATION #3:

“The pipeline only requires use of a lagoon in Munster for one week per year.”

Educated Public Response: 
Several experts have declared that the forcemain could not possibly operate without use of a full-time retention lagoon. There is just too little flow in the summertime to send raw sewage by an 11 km. forcemain to Richmond. It would become blocked, in very little time, if solids are not retained in lagoons and only the supernatant liquid sent through.  Knowing that Munster residents desperately wanted to be rid of the offensive and problematic open sewage ponds on their doorstep, the City has consistently lied about its full-time lagoon requirement for a pipeline.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MISREPRESENTATION #4:

“The pipeline can be completed in the shortest time. The communal options will take 12 to 18 months longer to complete.”

Educated Public Response:
Some of the members of the Public Liaison Committee requested (in 1998) that a "time to implement" component be included as one of the unit values, in the evaluation of the options. It fell on deaf ears. Since it was admitted by the City (RMOC), at that time, that a pipeline would take longer to construct, they apparently omitted the time consideration, entirely, so as not to put their pre-determined pipeline at a disadvantage.

The City has argued that a full Environmental Assessment would be necessitated by the selection of either of the communal options. This has no basis in fact. Any of the options (including the pipeline) ---with modifications (such as a switch from forcemain to gravity sewer through Richmond) would require an Addendum to the EA, which is roughly a 2-month process. (Ref: Class EA Planning Process, Part A.4.2.2, Change in Project or Environment).

Another of the City’s arguments, is that the communal options would be challenged …causing further delay. This seems an absurd argument since both communal options were received as qualified, conforming RFP bids, (while the pipeline "proposal" was illegitimately inserted into the RFP, even though it did NOT conform in any way with the RFP's clearly stated requirements). Also, there is nothing in EA convention that would give cause to entertain a Bump-up Request on an environmentally beneficial system.

What the City has not been forthright enough to disclose, is that ---short of paying hefty reparations to both communal bidders, making the pipeline costs even more extravagant--- the only proper way to remove the serious, pending, litigation over its RFP “irregularities” (relating to the pipeline), is to proceed with one of the two communal options, as recommended in the $179,000, RV Anderson Report (December 16, 2002). Therefore, a pipeline selection would result in far greater delays (perhaps several more years), if the City keeps trying to short-circuit due process, let alone its legal responsibility to work in the public interest.  For City officials to assert that the pipeline would not create the greatest interruption and delay ---by far--- is quite plainly: dishonest.

(More to follow from transcripts of Committee Meeting tape.)