At the Ottawa Council Meeting - Richard Hewitt, Director of (our failing) Infrastructure Services, stated:

Look a little closer at the Evidence:

Environmental Issues:

• The Provincial Policy Statement with regard to Sewage and Water Systems, states: (Sec: 1.3.1.1.-b) - "Communal services are the preferred means of servicing multiple lots/units in areas where full municipal sewage and water services are not or cannot be provided, where site conditions are suitable over the long term." This has important implications for both Munster and Richmond: a.) Since Munster already has a communal water supply, it should remain with a communal wastewater system ---and not transfer water out of the watershed. b.) Similarly, since Richmond has a central sewage system (i.e.: pipeline to ROPEC), it should also be hooked up to the City's central water supply, (...similar to the way in which Stittsville was simultaneously hooked up to central sewer and water, in 1977). The City should not be bringing more central sewage to a community on private and communal water.
• The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP) states: "Water transfers between different watersheds and different jurisdictions should be banned outright". There's a clue here.
• The Ontario Municipal Board-Ordered, RV Anderson Re-evaluation Study (released December 16, 2002), confirmed that the mechanical treatment option is superior to the pipeline in every environmental category: (i.e.: Aquatic and Terrestial Habitat, Surface Water Resources, Ground Water Resources, Social Environment, and Air Quality).
• There does not appear to be even a single environmental advantage for a pipeline choice: only negatives.

Risk Issues:

• The City's plan to pass a pressurized sewage forcemain through the shallow aquifer supplying water to all of Richmond's shallow wells, is high risk, given the 100% certainty of pipeline breakages occurring, (based on historical fact), and the extreme vulnerability of the water supply (simple deductive fact).
• However, an even greater area of danger would be that posed by the forcemain developing slow leaks (i.e.: under 10% of its flow volume, at the time), that would not set off the remote sensing alarms. Such leakages could disperse through the shallow aquifer for months ---without detection--- until a string of families along the forcemain route become ill or die ...as in Walkerton, revisited!
• The Ontario Ministry of the Environment states: "The use of communal sewage treatment and disposal systems allows for better protection of the environment and public health."  What part of this statement is unclear to City staff and politicians?
• The City took particular pains to avoid the inclusion of any component in the RV Anderson Work Plan, for evaluation of the risk that would be created by a pressure forcemain passing 140 shallow wells between the Munster and Richmond pumping stations, even though this defect in the Study was pointed out to the City, before its second contract with RV Anderson (See: Richmond Village Association's request for risk evaluation). The City was in violation of the Ontario Municipal Board Order to "use the best available evidence" to "serve the public interest." The best available evidence was not brought forward, and the public interest was clearly not served (see: Resident's Petition).
• The City referred to the mechanical treatment plant as a "pilot" system, (even though pilot study results were released six years previously, in 1997). Ward Councillor went so far as to call the system "experimental", when the identical technology received an Ontario MOE Certificate of Approval six years ago (also in 1997). It is largely due to malicious intervention on the part of the Region/City, that the system has not been operating over that entire six-year period. City officials have absurdly tried to rate the risk of a mechanical treatment as higher than that of the rupture-prone pressure sewage forcemains. This is irresponsible in the extreme, when one considers that the "worst case scenario" for a treatment plant would be for a shaft to break, which has never occurred in the history of hundreds-of-thousands of operational hours on the technology. (Besides, if it did happen  ---with the built-in redundancy of three shafts--- the other two RBCs would take up the slack.) Compare that with a "worst case scenario" for a forcemain, which has a rupture ---or even worse--- a slow leak. One can readily see which system honestly poses the greater risk!
• If we're on the topic of "EXPERIMENTAL" sewage systems, have the City explain to you: Where else in Ontario ---or anywhere, for that matter--- is such a madcap idea being applied, as that of running a pressurized sewage forcemain through the shallow aquifer for the wells of over a thousand residents? Now: That's experimental!

Cost Issues:

• If City-staff weren't so ashamed about how poorly their mathematics would fare under close scrutiny, then they would have produced an itemized list of how they arrived at the pipeline's bargain price of $8.1M. They have been asked, repeatedly, to show the breakdown, and have never done so. Any time a reputable price breakdown is produced, the pipeline cost figure turns out to be closer to the $16,000,000-mark: (See example). Don't forget that there would be more recent additional rock removal costs to add to this figure.

• "There are several technical problems related to the transmission of sewage over long distances through forcemains, particularly due to the relatively small amount of sewage from Munster, and the length of time that the sewage spends in the forcemain. These technical problems and the associated costs have not been taken into account in any of these estimates."  - (Michael Pinet, P.Eng., Goulbourn Township Engineer - 1997)

• One will recall that the recent, (December 16, 2003), RV Anderson Study ---the engineer-signed Study--- cited higher costs of the pipeline as one of its reasons for recommending elimination of the pipeline option. (Some costs, such as for additional rock removal were estimated much higher, but still unknown.)
• The City should not expect to be taken seriously in any cost considerations, until it produces information on how it arrived at its totals. At present, only TWO, credible, self-explainatory, itemized break-down cost estimates from trustworthy professionals are available, and both show the Capital costs for the pipeline to be in the $16,000,000 and $17,000,000-range.