Back Up Ditch Facts
February 23, 2007
An Outline Of Two Problems With The Public Information Presented by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
the following discussion paper was submitted by Dodge and formatted for the Peninsular from his presentation by garym; the content is his, transmission errors are gary's.
This information was presented at the Jan 30 meeting to Council and the public and is available on the Town website under public notices and “A direction for the future”.
MPW Bill Jones has stated dates are correctly noted and that the Town is not responsible for interpretation. That is the Town position.
The next
slide starts the discussion of the Water & Sewer Addendum. It is
dated 2006. It gives the amounts $31.67 and $46.8 million but does
not state that these are 2004 numbers. (Also it seemed an unfair
comparison to use these 2004 numbers to compare costs to some small
systems for the core area which seemed to be priced in 2007 amounts.
This was Table 1 and 2 from the handout Jan. 30. No one has prepared
the estimated 2007 amounts but it would not be unrealistic to add
15-25%. This is one of the problems with the addendum since the
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act calls for a cost update. Not
doing the cost update made it possible to use lower cost figures but
is it presenting balanced information?
Still
talking about the addendum the next slide claims the MOE asked for
ditch sampling. They did not ask for that for this addendum, it was
for something else, a totally different project. Many
people speak of the ditch water results as legitimate because the MOE
asked for them. This is misleading and it certainly fooled people
into believing the samples were requested for the addendum. MPW Jones
argues that this is okay because technically speaking the Ministry
did order the tests. He feels it is still relevant. I disagree
because of the poor assumption that made ditch water an indicator.
A
following table takes the ditch sample results and inserts them to
the Water and Sewer Addendum Study. This is justified by an
assumption that should not have been made. These samples were never
requested for this study and should not have been part of it.
In the next slide Henderson Paddon does indicate in an off hand way where the samples came from. They then assume that water in wells is the same as surface water without saying what wells they are talking about. In fact MOE guidelines for constructing a dug or sand point well are designed specifically to exclude surface water. The minimum depth requirement for a sand point is six metres and typical construction leaves no path for surface water egress. This is beyond the realm of ditchwater.
Here are the MOE construction details for a sand point: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/cons/4505e.pdf -- Please note they call for a sand point to be 20 feet deep. Modern design and installation is well understood by local contractors. Wells are also strictly regulated.
These wells are private systems and proper installation is the responsibility of the homeowner. It is pure theatre and sensationalism that Jeff Graham and Henderson Paddon should be allowed to assume that ditch water is an indicator of what comes from a properly installed sand point. They have used the ditch water data to speak at length in public session using this faulty assumption. They never explain what they mean by well. They never discuss what constitutes a reliable groundwater sample.
The total effect lends some bias to the presentation. This is being supported by the Town without clarification.
I regret that the integrity of a local consultant is being questioned but Henderson Paddon continues to utilize this data to condemn Sauble Beach by association in spite of the fact that they are aware Amabel Property Owners have questioned this data as a reliable indicator. There is no attempt to present both sides or balance the information presentation. This is the Towns viewpoint.
The
last slide hints that the data was actually requested for
something else altogether. It was to establish a baseline for the
study of the effect of municipal water supply on the performance of
septic systems. All the samples came from areas where there is a
small municipal water supply.
User login
Blogger Talkback
Latest Bloggings
The Crackerbarrel
New Crackers
Editorial Lint
| this is our story the sbp community portal is a not-for-profit volunteer community communications project giving a free internet voice to residents of the town of south bruce peninsula through an easy and open public forum. the framework for the sbp is ©2007 Gary Lawrence Murphy Sauble Beach, Ontario sbp @ teledyn.com |
|
      community plumbing for the web |
Local Weather
or visit our
environment canada forecast
and our
marine forecast
Clarification Of Two Problems With The Public Information
I feel the need to submit a rebuttal to your discussion paper.
The first problem: Cost Estimates
Dodge, at the January 30 meeting, called to get Councilors up to speed, didn’t MPW Jones state that the figures he was using were from November 2006 figures he got from HP? You will also note that the Tables you refer to that were handed out actually had an asterisk that highlighted that the $46.8 M* was an updated 2006 cost. (see just below Table 1) These tables were prepared November 22,2006. Just because we were in January 2007 doesn’t mean you can inflate the numbers again by 15-25%. Estimating these types of projects are very difficult for the Engineers, and I would bet the last task item of the EA completion would be a current cost update, to comply with the EA. It would be senseless to update them every month or so as the EA goes along it’s process. That is why the Council MUST complete the EA process - to get a real handle on costs, options, and hurdles in the future (like the property owners association).
The second problem: Association of Surface Water to Water Well Contamination
I see that your research led you to the Ministry of Environment’s website. You need to read a little further. Only in 2003 did Ontario update its regulations for installing sand points to 6 meters. Previously it had been three meters, jetted or driven down, which is no longer acceptable. I would bet that there are not that many newer wells in the Sauble Beach waterfront area.
See: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/cons/4505e.htm a document titled “Green facts: The Protection of Water Quality in Jetted or Driven Point Wells†by the MOE.
Further in this document it states; “A poorly maintained or constructed well can result in the bacterial and/or chemical contamination of its water. Two of the most common causes of contamination are foreign materials and surface water traveling down the well (or the space between the well casing and the bore hole) to the aquifer, and improper activities directly over top of the buried well.â€
“Indicators that surface contamination may be gaining access to the well include:
· presence of coliform bacteria in counts exceeding recommended limits set by health authorities;
· changes in the quality of the water, such as turbidity, colour, taste or odour, especially after a rainstorm or snow melt;
· settlement of soils over the top of the well casing;
· the presence of biological material, such as animals, insects or roots; or
· changes in the chemical quality of the well water detected through laboratory analysis. “
The Solution:
So, assumptions are made that the surface water MAY contaminate the wells. I would propose that the wells within 50 meters of these ditch samples be tested by the Town or Engineer and constitute part of the EA document, and correlated to the ditch samples to prove or disprove probable contamination. To me it matters not how and when the ditch samples were initiated, but the fact that the monitoring is ongoing is of concern. Where is the letter from the Engineers to the Town reporting the historical and latest round of sampling? This should be public info, and if there are still concerns regarding contamination, a warning or advisory should be public by someone along the chain of responsibility, don’t you think?
This is the good coming out of the EA process.
My 2 cents
Dodge; you could do a slam dunk if you had dated documentation with release dates of the figures from the town. The arterisk that CL1368 refers to isn't included on the town's web site so it would be great to see a copy of the handout.
Ditch Sampling: we may be going off on a tangent on this topic. If you look at the ditch sampling not to show that there are contaminated wells but to prove that there is surface contamination, improper grey water disposal and poorly functioning septic systems then ditch sampling seems logical. The major success of ditch sampling appears to be the ability to quickly find the source of improper discharges. It seems better to use these results to justify a sewage treatment plant than a water system UNLESS the aquifer was proven to already be contaminated.
http://www.neha.org/AEC/2002_AEC_Speakers/neha.ppt
This is a good presentation on the findings and expectations of ditch sampling.
BUT; the one question that is very important and no answer has been given:
If the town doesn't update the EA at this time can any of the water/sewage treatment alternatives be installed? Did Yvonne have to vote for the EA to fulfill her responsibility to her electorate?
Dan O.
Your question answered, IMO
Dan, I completely agree with your rational for using ditch samples to determine surface contamination. We use dye tests to find leaks in the pipe industry, no reason that we couldn't drop dye in septic tanks and see if it's leaching anywhere. Cheap and effective forensics. This idea has already been tabled at Council.
Regarding your one important question. The completion of the EA was approved and BUDGETED by the previous Council. There is roughly $20,000 left in the budget to complete the EA. The Anti-Water anything group, led by the Mayor, have tabled a motion in a form to stop the EA in it's tracks. Yvonne, and the other past members of Council, are recognizing the unfinished business and I guess if you look at it your way, are fulfilling the responsibility of the electorate and not going back on their previous committments.
There's budgeted costs which haven't been spent yet and this whole issue should not even have been raised. Another example of the wasted time of the Council on old issues.
The Slam-Dunk
Dodge is having technical troubles connecting with the upgraded website, so he's asked me to post the following excerpts from the COMRIF Application For Funding #11573 (HPA #104161) dated December 20, 2004 -- my apologies if I've quoted the wrong sections; hopefully we can get dodge's machine sorted out and he can answer questions directly.
Dodge writes:Page 17 and 18 contain the amounts in total for water and for sewer exactly the amounts that are used in the Towns website document in 2007:
Includes screens, grit tank, SBR equipment, tanks, holding lagoon, UV disinfection, aerobic digestor, infiltration basin, building)
This is what Dan O asks for as a slam-dunk.
No vote tonight at Council. Kerr, Lamont, Hoath and Herron walked out of the meeting rather than lose the vote. Wunderlich was absent.
2 points given, but no Slam Dunk
Okay, that settles it. The documents handed out by HP at the January 30, 2007 meeting clearly indicated the numbers were updated 2006 costs for the November 22nd Tables. Yes, the numbers 46.8 and 31.67 are surprisingly the same as the COMRIF Application of 2004, but as they are old numbers, being out a few is a moot point. There is no proposal in place, nor funding available. It appears that Council is considering new options in the near future at COW meetings.
On the vote note, there is more to the walkout than what meets the eye. Wunderlich was supposed to be with Gilbert and King overnight in Toronto, as I understood. What happened? Is the Mayor holding secret meetings through email? Why aren't ALL Councilors informed? THIS must be stopped. See my other post earlier this morning.
We are Divided No Doubt About It
No matter which way you slice it the Town has not updated the costs of the Water and Sewer Project as designated for the Addendum to update the EA. The Addendum changes the design of the Sauble wastewater treatment plant from the suggestion which was costed for the original EA. Less land is required but the smaller plot could be worth more. The Town has attempted to fool you into thinking they were updated costs. Do not be fooled by the interpetations of non Sauble residents, they will never have to fork out $25,000 ($50,000 if financed) for something they don't need.
These numbers do mask a problem in that Councillor Harron has said that she will not vote for water and sewer unless there is 2/3 funding. This not a fixed amount. If she is talking about the 2004 numbers given then the actual 1/3 is going to be higher in 2008 or whenever this project reaches the stage it can apply for funding again.
Plastic forcemain has doubled in price since Hurricane Katrina. The contractors I know are planning on bidding tenders much higher this year because they have lots of work. There are good reasons to think the project is worth $100 million today or will hit that number. The folks on the ground in Sauble and Hepworth are looking at bigger numbers to pay their share but Yvonne is talking ratios. Numbers are important and the public never got a look at the real ones during the addendum process.
The Council has divided along a line on either side of the water and sewer issue. The addendum will not be finished without a proper water sample that delineates what is happening with the ground water. No funding will ever be available as long as the need for it is unproven or the community and Council are divided. The government will not fund for developers. It won't happen.
Councillrs Kerr, Harron, Wunderlich, Lamont and Hoath are lined up with the Chicken Little approach. Except for last night when they walked out they have voting control and will force the addendum to continue. They want the developers to come in and their goals are not those of the people but those of the Chamber of Commerce. This is the real dividing line. They claim the water is no good without any proof of their statements. They claim some event will close the beach. Neither speculation will justify any funding from a cash strapped government which has a huge problem with infrastructure renewal. Hundreds of thousands have already been wasted on this project and the addendum cannot be finished for $20,000 or even $200,000 because the bump ups are asking for proof that this project is really needed outside the core area of Sauble Beach. There is no proof of the type acceptable in Toronto.
Mayor Gilbert ran for election saying she would stop this project and redirect the funds to solving a real problem in the downtown core. She did not say we should keep going with the pipeline just because we already put money in it.
For a small system it will require input from local property owners to see if they want to pay for their 1/3 share and if so everyone will be on board to go ahead. That is the first step. This will require a redo of the EA in some form but could be done in 12-18 months with cooperation from all parties. With full Council and community support and with the lobbying effort of the Amabel Ratepayers there is a good chance we could get funding.
The alternative is two years to finish the existing addendum and a split Council with opposition from a large ratepayers group reducing chances of getting funding for a pipeine to zero.
This is the way the four who walked out plus the absent Councillor Wunderlich want us to go. From a strategy perspective it seems doomed to fail even though the five have the voting power to force the issue forward.
Town Staff Still Misleading About Information For Council
I requested that Town of South Bruce Peninsula CAO Malcolm McIntosh correct or clarify the information on the website and print a clarification notice in the Sun Times.
I gave the information posted here to the CAO 10 days ago. I specifically requested he act to correct it. This information was presented to Council by Henderson Paddon and backed up by MPW Jones.
He basically blew me off. So the staff are engaged in keeping the public just a little misinformed. It is clear that Henderson Paddon and MPW Jones have been free to twist any available information to suit their agenda.
Otherwise why not correct the information or footnote it? CAO is ultimately responsible for the information and I conclude after one week that Malcolm is not eaxctly the captain of the staff ship. I am fast approaching the point of questioning whether he is doing his job properly.