The Sewer Process

Letters

(continued)

We have been reading with interest your coverage of putting sewers on the other side of the river to accommodate the residents who have septic systems.

We attended both public meetings and watched the last Council Meeting on EastLink cable.  It's an explosive issue and lots of people are keeping quiet for fear of offending their neighbors.

Two things stand out:

1.  The deputation by the home owners at the last Council Meeting seemed to be aimed at the methods whereby the Town applied for the funds and the lack of "scientific process".

2.  The response of CAO Ron Brown and Council was pointed at the long standing desire by first Southampton and then the amalgamated Saugeen Shores to service all home owners and business people with sanitary sewers, which are deemed safer and more efficient than home managed septic fields.

Some Facts:

The Council and staff are constantly applying for grants as this is the only way they can move large projects forward.  If we delay the merits of sewers for a moment and concentrate on process, there appears to be nothing new in what was done although the time frame was shorter than most, but not all applications.  Whether all agencies were consulted in what time frame is murky.   Here is what is known

• The Town became aware of possible infrastructure money being available.  One area of interest to all levels of government is sanitary sewers because of the health issues involved.

• The Town applied for the grant and they were awarded the money in a very short period of time.

• They called two public meetings and listened to the issues.  This was mostly handled by Ron Brown as the Council members chose not to comment, but to listen.

• The Town enlisted an engineering firm to study the issue.

• The last Council meeting was dominated by the deputation and the responses of Council.

• Many open lots cannot be built on due to their size and the safety of putting septic systems on small lots.

• Many, but by no means all of the residents north of the Saugeen are strongly against sewers.

Whether or not every step of the process went though properly is unknown, but it appears that what was done was not unusual.

The one thing that everyone admits is that the engineering is not complete.  This is not unusual.  The Town has a very small engineering staff headed by Dave Burnside.  They don't do detailed engineering of large projects, but oversee engineering companies and contractors who do the detail down to the specifications, drawings and material selection. 

Much of this is done and always has been done in consultation with possible contractors, the engineering firm and the Town's Engineering staff.  A recent very efficient example of this was the large water intake project that took place last year.

At present the Council does not  know the exact dollar value of the project.  This will only come out in the tender process.  This happens all the time.  Estimates are done based upon broad guidelines, but details are only known after the tender process and the engineering is done.  It is perfectly valid for the residents to hold responsible the Town for any cost over-runs that occur in the future.

What the No voters say:

The views of many of the people against sewers is encapsulated in their deputation. 

• The process was flawed and undemocratic

• There is no demonstrated health need for sewers

• The majority of home owners don't want them.

• The sewer issue is a 'cloak' for development

• There is no need for curbs and sidewalks, storm sewers and improved roads that would change the area's character.

• People on fixed income cannot afford sewers.

What the Council and Staff say:

• Sewers across the river were always planned from the time of the Southampton Council.  The sewage treatment plant was built with capacity for them.

• This was a very rapid grant process due to the availability of the money.  The Town maintains that they could not have done all the engineering without a chance of getting the money. This again is not unusual. To do the engineering without a chance for obtaining the money would be irresponsible.

• If this money is rejected it may be that the provincial government will dictate sewers in the future and the entire burden will be put upon the residents across the river.

• There are creative financing avenues like 20 year loans to the home owners.

• The cost of putting in any road improvements is shared across the entire tax base and not totally by all the people across the river.

• There are many areas serviced by sewers in Southampton that don't have sidewalks E.g. Clarendon

In the early 70's sewers came to many on the south side of the river and the cost was large relative to the value of the $ at that time and the incomes.  Many paid up to $3000 to get off septic fields.

(next column)

19/07/2009 11:01 AM

Some people took a low rate loan that came on their bill in installments and thereby spread it over time.  This was a very good option because it improved their home value. The buying power of the Canadian dollar decreased over the next year.  Therefore, fixed income people benefited by the long term financing at a fixed rate.  Home buyers don't like septic systems and the homes serviced increased greatly in value.  See chart included:

The Year 1914 used as the base.

So the residents who selected to buy or finance sewers in about 1971, did quite well.  If they were asked to do it 10 years later, the buying power of the money was about half of what it was. If they happened to be on a fixed income, this would have hurt them dearly.

Behind the Scenes

There is a big push by all levels of government to do what is known as 'fill in' development where vacant lots are used rather than large 'sub-division' projects that fan out from the core community.  This is deemed to be cheaper at all levels and follows the European model where farm land is not as plentiful and service to outlying areas is expensive.

The NO votes come from two sources:

1.  Those that simply can't afford a new large expenditure.

2.  Those that do not want to change the character of the area and are worried about massive development on lands that are fragile and pristine.

The Town can help with the first issue in that creative financial methods are available.  Many on the south side of the river have expressed a desire to help by spreading the burden across the entire tax base.  Why are they thinking that way?  They believe that getting rid of septic systems near the lake shore is helpful to all.  (This view is shared by many conservation agencies)

The second issue is far from easy to solve.  People own land and lots and often they like to sell them or build on them.  If the land is zoned for building, they may want to build.

There is a lot of land, however, across the river that cannot be built on due to environmental issues, wetlands, etc.  The exact details of this have not been clearly shown at Council or the Public Meetings, although it has been mentioned at each.

  There is little that the Town officials can do about building on properly zoned lots.  The time to settle it is at official plan time.  Unfortunately, the pubic pays little attention to the Official Plan.  It is the single most important document that governs the future of the community.  It's hard to get involved with it because the process takes a long time and it looks complicated.  It is very time consumming.

Is there any way to compromise?

It would be very costly to determine on a case by case basis who can afford the cost of the sewers and the hookup and who can not.  It seems a shame to drive people who have enjoyed their homes for generations away..  Therefore, long term financing over 20 years at a low interest rate should be considered.  Having the Town help on hookup might be possible also.

On the issue of urbanization, it's clear that not all streets need to be upgraded to have curbs and sidewalks.  For example, Eckford does not appear to need them as it is a country lane with low traffic. The road is in good shape, it is safe for strollers, bikers and joggers. 

The issue of storm sewers has to be left to detailed engineering. When the Chippewa area storm water issue was dealt with a few years ago, some open ditches were left that fill with stagnant water that is mosquito ridden. 

The Use of Numbers

A good summary of pollution comes from the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation.   This organization has give excellent talks at the Museum that were lightly attended.

Their summary reports do not get  into numbers, but you can ask them and they will supply detail for you.  We have to be careful in using statistics.  For example, lots of use of the percentage 3% has been talked about.  The NO voters quote it as the pollution percentage caused by humans (implying septic systems, but probably meaning more).  Bruce County has a low density of humans per square mile or per square kilometer and the run-off issues from agriculture are far greater than septic seepage.  But, the concentration of humans around beach areas is very high and the public health officials want to get control of human waste, if they can.

While a septic system in a farm home that has big drainage field is not dangerous to anybody, a septic system on a 50 to 100 foot lot is very hard to manage especially if it is in rocky soil with a clay pan below that leads directly to the lake. 

Anybody who has been along the north shore in the spring will know that there is a tremendous rush of water above and below the surface moving to the lake from snow melt.  Although septic fields can work well, there is no mandatory testing of septic systems.  As Doug Freiburger said at the last meeting "Inspection is not just looking down a hole", but it involves opening up the field and doing core samples and monitoring the seepage to the water system..  Sewage treatment plants can be monitored at much  lower cost with improved safety to the public.

It's too bad that the cost of sewers is not spread over the tax base.  It should be part of the public health issues that the provincial and federal government looks after out of a larger tax base.  One thing is sure.  If you have a new septic system, you will have to replace it in 20 years with normal and careful use.  There is a good summary.  Click here to see it

South Sider