Richard Hewett implies that the latest RVA study validates the work of Connestoga Rovers and Associates, or suggests that the initial CRA study was correct:

To the contrary, the R.V.Anderson study of December 18, 2002 study showed that the pipeline was third behind the two on-site options. 

The second study by R.A. Anderson selected pipe based on the erroneous assumption, (likely through information supplied by City staff), that pipe had the necessary approvals (*also incorrect, but this aspect is dealt with elsewhere), and that the timeframe for approvals of the on-site options would have incurred additional costs for these options.  Remove these erroneous timeframes, and the pipe still comes out third.  Under the CRA study, all of the options were given equal footing  (with time-considerations excluded), therefore, with respect to approval times, the RVA-second-study does not prove the CRA study was done correctly; in fact, it proves it was done incorrectly. 

It is interesting to note that, in the lead-up to the CRA study, MOE clearly indicated to Council that timeliness was important: (i.e.: adherence to the "compliance schedule").  Therefore, Regional Council, MOE and Munster residents were all looking for a timely solution to the sewage problem. So, would it not, therefore, have been reasonable to include "timeliness" (as in "time to implement"), as a necessary criterion to rate the different options?  CRA did not include it!  Why? -- Perhaps it was because ---as it appears--- the pipe would have come out of the evaluation considerably behind the on-site options. (That delay factor still applies ...but: with the additional burden of legal encumbrances, tied solely to the pipeline and the Requests for Proposals irregularities which occurred during the pipeline selection.)