South Bruce Peninsular - Mayor's Broken Promise #1 - Comments

Water meters

Dan O. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:13:03 -0500

Dodge; I've got to disagree with you on one point:

"Freshwater adds nothing to wastewater except volume which is easily handled."

Treated water costs money for treatment, filtration and pumping. At the present there is a surplus but conservation as a way of life is easier than forcing it on consumers if the need arose (emergency pump breakdown, etc.).

Water added to a wastewater plant also has problems:
- it costs money to treat waste water for chemicals and pumping.
- more importantly it reduces the retention time of the system resulting in lower digestion than could potentially be gained.
- it costs in extra wear and tear on pumps, motors and aeration systems.
- lastly, depending on the size of the plant vs. throughput, it allows basin shutdown for maintanance. A luxury that you don't have when a plant is near capacity.

Dan O.

Are Water Meters Really Needed? (For Wiarton Residents)

Dodge — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:11:23 -0500

CL1368 you are quick to accuse our Mayor and a little short on detail. The water meter decision was presented much too quickly as a fait accomplis and there were some warning bells. It looked a better strategy to have a second look rather than set the plan in motion. That is why it got voted down. The people of Wiarton are a little sick of having decisions made for them that impact then negatively in the long run. Mayor Gilbert is keenly aware of this.

Staff should not be making high level decisions. For example the past administration's decision to exclude Veolia from the proposal process and stay with Ontario Clean Water
Agency as a water manager meant everyone who is on a Municipal system pays inflated rates for water right now, today. This was a huge mistake and supported by staff namely MPW Jones. Check the comparative bids in Walkerton or Georgian Bluffs and see why they hired Veolia. Walkerton basically fired OCWA for inflating the amount of testing work. GB is very pleased with Veolia as an operator. I asked about that.

The Wiarton water rates are running in surplus because the capital expense on the books for the treatment plant is paid off. The future surplus was to be used to pay for meters but obviously the Mayor and some Councillors have questions based on the information presented.

I take issue with you calling it a broken promise. It is more of a put on hold for further evaluation before proceeding stage at the moment. Now if under further evaluation of all the information the Mayor reconsiders her position on meters it would be with some consideration of what Wiarton people want. If rates are averaged across all water systems in the future then many more people have a vested interest.

Here are the considerations that prompted the delay.

1) The MOE last year suggested that the Town should have a water conservation program OR an end user metering system. They did not order anything. What if this was just the ruminations of a bunch of wet behind the ears college kids?
The Wiarton water plant has the capacity to feed Wiarton and another town the same size as it sits now. There is no capacity restraint. Freshwater adds nothing to wastewater except volume which is easily handled. Lastly this is not Shallow Lake. We are not running off a groundwater sucking well.

2) Town staff suggested using a high tech, EXPENSIVE water metering system that was untested in Ontario. What if it did not perform as promised and more staff had to be hired to run the system? Why is Wiarton the guinea pig for the system and the people the bankers for it? They have had the experience of being part of a chlorine experiment in the past that went wrong.

3) Given that meters may decrease slightly the maintenance and equipment replacement costs in station, is metering any better than setting aside a suitable reserve from water rates for the same purpose? If not why go through the expense of installing meters?

4) This is the big one. If water rates are now in surplus could they be lowered to the customers once a suitable reserve for (3) is set aside? With water conservation would there be a consensus on this?

These questions are not settled. The big one of course is given a reserve is created and absent meters could water rates be lowered and could Wiarton water users continue to enjoy unmetered water from a plant they paid for?

None of this has anything to do with the Class EA study currently being done to expand the Wiarton water treatment plant to fill a non existent pipeline to distant places. Someone will still have to pay for this useless exercise.

Edit: I agree with Dan O's comment that there are handling costs for wastewater by volume. To clarify: dilution with freshwater adds nothing in the way of nutrients or waste and there is capacity to handle volume in Wiarton. The plant is nutrient, not volume limited by MOE certification. Anyway some of the extra water probably goes to lawns or perhaps for the odd pool not down the drain.

CL1368's Biased Observations

zodiac — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:29:34 -0500

Hey Ollie...good for you! I don't really
care what CL1368 smokes,but this Pipeline/water meter Consultant needs to know a little more about what's really going on,
instead of relying on input from the pipeline Profiteers! Why should the Taxpayers be guinea pigs( to the tune of MORE than 1/2 million $$$) for Bill Jones and his pet Consultants (Henderson Paddon). We do have some Councillors who believe strongly in being pro-active for their Constituents, but others who feel that Staff recommendations are the "be all and end all" and should not
be questioned....well Ollie gets our support because the Staff is accountable to the Council and the Council is accountable to the Tax-Payer. So Mr. (or Mrs. or whatever) put that in your pipe and smoke it... Go ahead and smoke CL1368...just don't inhale! Zodiac.

Water Metering re Manager of Public Works

ollie — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:56:26 -0500

Not all recommendations made by staff have
to be accepted - thus the term
"recommendation". The MPW may have his own hidden agenda for making that recommendation.

Mayor's Broken Promise #1

CL1368 — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:44:52 -0500

Source: www.gwengilbert.com/faq.php (Mayor Gilbert's election website)

"Most Asked Questions & Answers

Q. How should water charges be fairly assessed for the town?
A. I believe that water meters would be fair. Citizens would then pay for the water that they use."

Mayor Gilbert voted against metering on February 12, 2007, against the recommendation from the Manager of Public Works.
Go figure.