Lakeshore Advance, 2013-02-27, Page 5Y
Wednesda : i 27, 2013 • Lakeshore Advance 5
community
Davis Dagg responds to sewer letters
(Editor's note: 'these are the opinions oldie
writer and not necessarily endorsed by the
Council or Municipality of Lambton Shores)
In response to recent Letters to the Editor
that questioned municipal coucil's deci-
sion-making for the proposed Grand Bend
sewage treatment facility, I need to make it
clear that, from my perspective, council has
made the right and best decision. In order to
address uninformed public comments, a
first-hand report on the facts is necessary.
Why is a Sewage Treatment Facility (S'1'F)
necessary? - 'Ihe federal government has
made it clear that all municipal sewage must
have secondary treatment (more than
lagoon treatment) by 2020 so Lambton
Shores has no choice but to upgrade the
Grand Bend lagoons. If we don't draw on the
Building Canada grant monies now, we will
have to pay full price in the future.
Are we going to waste our money on a
plant that is too small? First, the new plant
design is estimated to cost $8.2 million less
than the previous design. The public is
poised to save significant amounts on their
sewage rates -- especially when the replace-
ment costs are integrated into the rates.
Instead of paying for the upkeep and
replacement of a $26.9 million facility, it will
be an $18.2 million facility. Upper tier gov-
ernments have communicated their intent
to require municipalities to include the cost
of replacing wastewater infrastructure into
rates rather than wait for federal or provin-
cial grants. 'Ihe burden will rest on all Lamb -
ton Shores sewer users to pay for the plant
repairs.
To respond to the question of whether the
plant is too small, the following questions
and answers should help:
1Iow many new homes can this plant han-
dle? Currently, Lambton Shores is allocated
1,273 m3 (cubic meters) in the lagoons. With
this new plant, we will increase our capacity
to 1,600 m3. 'this is an increased capacity of
327 m3. Each new home requires approxi-
mately 0.75 m3 of sewage capacity. 'this
means we can add approximately 450 new
homes. Each home has an average of 2.5
people. 'this means that the population can
expand by approximately 1,125 people. t
have no idea where this number of houses
could be built as Lambton Shores has very
little area left for development in the (,rand
Bend area. Me undeveloped Southbend
Estates already has 260 m3 allocated for
sewage in the current lagoon system and the
Rice development behind Sobeys already
has an allocation of 60 m3.
What is a reasonable population projec-
tion for the next 20 years? It is difficult to
estimate exactly what the population projec-
tions will be, but in 2011 Statistics Canada
reported that the Grand Bend area in Lamb -
ton Shores had increased by 76 people (per-
manent residents') between 2006 and 2011.
If these are reliable numbers, then we won't
he exceeding 1,125 people in the next 20
years so we will have lots of capacity. A
recent Lambton County report stated that
Lambton Shores' population could decrease
slightly by 2031. Council is working to coun-
teract that possibility.
''Ihe plant can handle surges of seasonal
flows by holding sewage in the lagoons until
processed by the ST'E
Is it true that the Pinery has more capacity
than it can use? Yes. 'Ihe Pinery's sewage
system - which empties into the Grand
Bend lagoon is designed for a 253 1113 flow.
l lowever, our agreement with the Pinery
grants an allocation of 470m3. During recent
development fee discussions, our Treasurer
and Acting CAU, Janet Ferguson, indicated
that the development fees council approved
were based on the fact that we would rene-
gotiate our agreement with the Pinery. if the
agreement is renegotiated to limit its
When Is the Truth Not the Truth
I read the deputy mayors letter to the edi-
tor, in the Forest Standard, and on the web
site of the Lakeshore Advance, clarifying her
position on why the Lambton Shores Coun-
cil decided to redesign the Grand Bend sew-
age treatment plant with a great deal of inter-
est. Spice I have made a significant number
of comments on what counsel has done, 1
assume 1 am one of the uninformed public
that she refers to in the preamble to her
letter.
A Google search for " half-truths" provided
the following definition from the Wikipedia
site;
" a half-truth is a deceptive statement that
includes some element of truth':
I will briefly explain why I consider each of
the issues raised by the deputy Mayor to be
half-truths. I do not think the deputy Mayor
is intentionally trying to be deceptive, she is
just poorly informed. She is being misled by
her advisers, who are themselves poorly
informed..
Why is the sewage treatment facility
necessary?
'Ihe deputy Mayor says that the federal
government has mule it clear that all munic-
ipal sewage must have secondary treatment
by the year 2020, so l.aunbton shores has no
choice but to upgrade the Grand Bend
lagoons
It is true that the federal government
passed the" Wastewater System Effluent Reg-
ulations, on June 28, 2012. 'These regulations
were passed under the fisheries act. You can
look them up yourself online. At the end of
the regulations they have included a" Regu-
latory Impact Analysis Statement': Included
in This Analysis Statement is'lltble 1 where
the impact on Ontario sewage treatment
facilities is shown.
By the year 2020, Three (3) wastewater
allocation to the Pinery's designed system
capacity, this would release 2171113 for use
in l.aunbton Shores. Again, if each house
needs an allocation of 0.75 1113, this would
provide capacity for approximately 290 more
houses.
What happens if we need to expand the
plant? Me anticipated plant is designed to
be expandable. If this becomes necessary in
the future, we will have collected approxi-
mately $2,250 for wastewater services in the
development fees of each of the 450+ news
hot:nes built. 'this would total approximately
$1 million. Proposed new developments
would contribute to the upgrade as well.
'Ibis would mean that development would
pay for itself - which is a reasonable
concept.
Shouldn't we just build it larger if we have
the grant monies? 'there are several reasons
why it would be unwise. First, the Building
Canada grant monies cannot exceed $14.9
million or 2/3rds of $22.5 million. Anything
beyond $22.5 million is 100% cost to Lamb -
ton Shores and South 1 htron. 'the cost of the
former plaint was estimated to he $26.9 mil-
lion. '11115 means that $4.4 trillion of the cost
would not be subject to reimbursement
under the grant. It was prudent to reduce
the plant size to fall within the grant ceiling
as long as it met our projected needs for the
next 20 years and was affordable and sus-
tainable. Also, itis becoming evident that
new sewage treatment technology is becom-
ing popular which captures the energy
released from the methane in sewage and
sells it. 'Ibis is a cost -recovery model which
is very attractive. Why would we super -size a
plant with technology that could become
obsolete or simply deteriorate before it is
needed?
But aren't the septic systems failing in
Grand Bend and won't we have to put those
houses onto a sewer system? 'the public
systems in Ontario will need to be upgraded,
by the year 2030,four (4) more wastewater
treatment systems in Ontario will need to be
upgraded, and by the year 2040, ninety-nine
(99) more waste treatment systems will need
to be upgraded.
Since there are about 470 municipal sew-
age treatment plants in Ontario and many of
then are lagoons, it is likely that not all
lagoons will be required to upgrade to
mechanical secondary treatment. Those that
are required to upgrade will likely not require
an upgrade until the year 2040.
So the deputy Mayor statement of" fact"
that the Grand Bend lagoons must he
upgraded to secondary treatment by 2020 is
certainly not my reading of the federal
regulations.
1 low many new homes can the plant
handle?
'Ihe deputy Mayor says 415 homes.
On December 3, 2012 Council accepted
the director of cotnmunity services report
number 114 - 2012. Re-; Grand Bend Sewage
Treatment Facility Reference Sheet.
needs to be aware that council has approved
the concept of a septic inspection program.
There is no immediate need to commence
this project in the area of concern because
we have tested 12 wells and the water qual-
ity results are all within Ontario drinking
%voter standards. 'lite cost of installing a
sewer system in that area would be between
$44 and $66 million (at 2009 costs) and we
certainly can't pay for it on our own as it
would exceed our debt ceiling. Even if we
received 2/3rds funding from upper tier gov-
ernments, we would still be required to pay
a minimum of $15 to $22 million (or 1/3rd of
the cost) without any help from South
l luron. Sewage rates would sky -rocket. I
don't think this is what anyone wants. A sep-
tic inspection program would lay the
responsibility on individual lot owners to
maintain their septic tank. 'Ihis would be far
less costly to everyone.
Were there added bonuses from reconsid-
ering the matter? Definitely. By reconsider-
ing the matter, council has decided the new
plant should handle waste from septic tanks
and this will produce revenue that could pay
for much of the annual operating costs. Also,
it became evident that we needed to change
the project scope to include the pumping
station in Grand Bend because it was in des-
perate need of $1.5 million repairs. If Build-
ing Canada accepts this scope change and
pays 2/3rds of the cost, this could save
Lambton Shores and South 1 luron residents
approximately $1 million.
Certainly, various people in the commu-
nity will not like to be challenged by this
new plan but fortunately this council had
the courage to reconsider the matter and not
waste taxpayers money.
If you would like to be kept informed of
municipal news from my perspective, please
send ane an email ( elirabethdavisdagg@
gmai .com ) and 1 will add you to my news-
letter distribution list. Please do not hesitate
to contact me for other reasons as well. In
your service,
Elizabeth Davis- Dagg
You can read it 011 the Lambton shores
website by reviewing the Council agenda for
December 3, 2012. In the table attached to
the report the Lambton Shores capacity in
the existing lagoons is 1497 tn3 per day. 'Ihe
new proposed plant has a capacity of 1600
n13 per day. My arithmetic says that Lambton
Shores is increasing its capacity by 103 111"
per day. 'this would only be enough capacity
137 new homes, not the 450 homes calcu-
lated by the deputy Mayor.
What is a reasonable population projec-
tion for the next 20 years?
'Ihe deputy Mayor seems to rely 011 the sta-
tistics Canada report on population growth.
Statistics Canada only counts the permanent
residents of Grand Bend 111Lnmhton Shores.
Surely the deputy Mayor knows that Lamb -
ton Shores is a tourist destination and many
homes In Grand Bend are seasonal usage,
which also need sewage treatment capacity.
'Ihe new plant will not be able to treat all the
sewage generated during the summer
CONTINUED > PAGE 17