Last week Goulbourn Councillor, Janet Stavinga, pleading with the environmental services committee of the City of Ottawa for an end to the politically troublesome, 10-year-long Munster Hamlet sewage saga. The councillor is demanding the construction of a sewage pipe between Munster Hamlet and Richmond.

In arguing that the Munster sewage situation had already cost more than $5 million before an iota of work has been done, and by criticizing the process that led to this mess, it would appear that this councillor and former mayor of Goulbourn is the author of her own misfortune.

Today City Council will ponder the unanimous decision of the environmental services committee supporting her plea. Before casting their votes, councillors would do well to consider carefully the facts, as well as to review the urgent need for a forensic audit and investigation into this financial and organizational fiasco.

The pleasant community of Munster has been afflicted with an outdated wastewater lagoon and sewage-spray field for many years, and has watched as learned consultants produced report after report with conflicting and contradictory recommendations. City Hall is groaning under the weight of the complicated technical data that make up these multi-million-dollar studies.

It was therefore not surprising that somehow councillors on the environmental services committee appeared to overlook the last engineering report by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited. The weighty report, ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board, recommended an on-site solution --- construction of a compact wastewater treatment plant with outflow into the Jock River --- and not a pipeline, because a pipeline would be much too expensive.

The Anderson report’s rejection of the pipeline option must have caused some hand-wringing, because the city muddied the waters by sending another $50,000 R.V Andersons way to think the whole thing over once again. The consultant came back with a little, unsigned technical memorandum saying that on a 60-year or 90-year basis, a pipeline might just make some sense after all. City staff then produced a report that recommended a pipeline solution.

I’ve tried to get the city to identify an R.V. Anderson engineer who would put his name to the technical memorandum, but to no avail. There seems to be nobody willing to step forward to carry the can for the basis of the staff recommendation. The technical memorandum remains an anonymous orphan.

It’s not just the process that is a mess, but the cost as well. The amount of money spent not solving the Munster sewage problem is already at about $10,000 a home. That consists mostly of consulting fees and sewage haulage. It gets worse. By the city’s own figures, the implementation of the pipeline solution will cost $18,000 per home, and these are numbers that appear distinctly massaged downwards from those of previous consultants. Those earlier numbers suggest a pipeline solution closer to $25,000 a residence. The city knows neither the route nor the type of pipeline eventually to be built. There must be some wondrous financial alchemy at work to give the city confidence in its pipeline costs.

Against the financial profligacy of a pipeline, an on-site solution is a downright bargain, at a cost in the range of $4,000 to $7,000 per home. The two companies offering on-site treatment, including my firm, Seprotech, have made offers in this range, but the city seems to have little interest in saving millions of dollars.

The residents of Munster must be relieved that the city at large, and not their tranquil 430-home community, will carry the cost of the pipeline. Were Munster residents paying for the solution, the outcome would be clear.

In a May 30 guest column (Munster pipeline is best solution), Councilor Stavinga referred to Seprotech’s on-site solution as a "pilot" and "experimental," suggesting "perhaps someday, on-site treatment will be a viable option for village and rural communities." The councillor seems to have overlooked the inconvenient fact that Seprotech, an Ottawa company, has built more than 400 wastewater treatment plants over more than 20 years for communities across North America.

The selective arguments do not end there. The councillor argues for a pipeline because it can be implemented the most quickly, in about 18 months. In fact, it takes six months to build an on-site plant. And so it goes. The councillor, despite clear facts to the contrary and costs for a pipeline threatening to spiral out of control, clings nevertheless to the pipeline option. Strange indeed.

It is time for the Munster wastewater situation to be resolved quickly, by conducting an independent financial audit and investigation into the affair.