[All] Better Planning needed for Water Services

Mon Jan 4 00:39:41 EST 2010

I totally agree on the smaller is best system. These mega systems simply don't work. There's no way one can monitor system integrity appropriately without spending vast amounts of money or assuming risk. The city and region often rely upon public complaints as a system of monitoring and according to the MOE, 90% of all complaints about water issues happens after people have been sick.

Around our area, so much development is taking place adding water to pre-existing systems to the point it goes beyond design constraints. In Laurelwood, sewers flood over in the spring because the subdivision was not built with regard to further development in areas like my subdivision of Columbia Forest. Situations like this happen in Kitchener too. The road crew didn't realize what a recharge was as they built Erbsville Road so in the spring, it was common for water mains to sink and break in the muck. If the effort were there to take a better look at the geology and hydrology of these areas, we could better engineer systems to mitigate risks. 

The Region's Hydrological Department does NOT have the authority to get involved in planning matters unless the city or region specifically requests their assistance. Rob Trotter, planner at the City of Waterloo told me on July 15 2009, the city contacts the Region's hydrology staff in issues of contamination and larger projects such as sub watershed studies. Rob Trotter stated, the bigger the proposal, the more people involved. Planner Ryan Mounsey at the City of Waterloo stated because the Region has the jurisdiction over water matters it's the region's issue to determine if the hydrology staff should be involved with a proposal or not. Basically, the city of Waterloo is currently negating it's ability to request the assistance of the Region's Hydrology Staff in planning matters. This is not good!

In terms of water management, it would be better to manage systems on smaller grids that are designed to have regard for area geological and population variances. We could better manage chloride and chloramine levels reducing risk of surplus water or overtreatment. It makes leaks easier to find. If problems arise, the matter could be resolved in isolation without compromising the function of other systems. If problems arise, the chances for a faster response are more likely on a closed loop small grid than lost somewhere in this massive network.

Lulu :0)

--- On Sun, 1/3/10, Randy B. McLean <randybmclean at rogers.com> wrote:

From: Randy B. McLean <randybmclean at rogers.com>
Subject: Re: [All] Fw: Canadian Ban needed on 13L Toilets
To: "Robert Milligan" <mill at continuum.org>, "Louisette Lanteigne" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Cc: all at gren.ca
Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 7:34 AM

Lu and Robert:

A 13 litre toilet is a total waste unless you weigh 800 lbs and eat 50 lbs of food a day.  I have 13 litre toilets but am not on any system (private well and septic).  The toilets do not use anywhere near 13 litres more like half that and are fully adjustable.  They are a good design and only need one flush no matter who uses them.  I know this is not a defence for my flamboyancy but more of a statement to promote common sense.

Jet toilets are not bad.  A lot of none North Americans like bidets and they use more water and little toilet paper.

Transporting waste with water has been a fundamental paradox of the industrial age.  Turns out we are just like bacteria after all.

What is worse is that most infrastructures in most cities have leaking sewers.  Those below ground water elevation infiltrate millions of gallons per day and to repair is very expensive and not perfect or permanent.  Construction of new subdivisions are of poor quality and poorly inspected.  I have been in new installs that have yet to be hooked into the system and they are flowing 1/4 pipe.  All ground water infiltration.  Some municipalities are so anal and political or afraid to tell people to disconnect their sump pumps and down pipes from the sanitary that they actually design in overcapacity at the WPCP.  The nutrient load and the cold water adversely affect the zoogleal bacteria to such a point that the biomass is now full of lower species of fungi and they have a nasty by-product that produces a polysaccharide and foam.  Frozen brown foam laying all over a plant then thawing to rot and stink is the norm.  Now to combat the stink they
 have elaborate deodourizers spaying a mercaptan around the perimeter of the plant. (bandaid)

Banning 13 litre toilets is smoke and mirrors.  It will be used to complicate the issue and divert the real problem.  Inflow and infiltration I/I (eye eye) is the major problem but it cannot be corrected if municipalities continue to allow sewers to be built in shifiting beds.  Poorly prepared and full of ground water.  Europe and the States are going back to smaller areas collecting smaller volumes and treating the waste at a smaller plant which is local.  No more super plants treating waste water that travels 100 miles to be treated.  The giant sewer running from the Duffins Creek plant in Whitby north to Sutton is cracked and sitting beneath the water table; mostly gravel bed.  It is leaking after 30 years of service and cannot be fixed but only left to further decay.  This thing is a giant tile bed and will drain the morains along its route, mixed with dilute waste to arrive for treatment barely capable to support bacterial growth.  It will
 have to be replaced. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Municipalities know they have a problem and know it is the collection system.  They spend millions annually studying the problem and collecting recommendations to fix but the cost of the jobs make the task un-reachable especially during these times.  The cities which have built sewage collection systems in the water table now have a giant drainage tile system and sewage collection system hopefully all going to one spot but I know better.  They can shut off some of the inflow or intentional illegal hook ups and that takes care of the problem of flash flows when it rains.  Keeping the ground water out?  that is an entire different headache.

2 cent Randy

ps to not get rid of waste immediatley after it has left the body is dangerous, however I believe urinating while showering keeps your feet free from fungal infection.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Robert Milligan 
To: Louisette Lanteigne 
Cc: all at gren.ca 
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [All] Fw: Canadian Ban needed on 13L Toilets

Hi Lulu, 

I agree as a first step, but then ban the 6L, then the 4.8, ending up with energy (methane & hydrogen) & humus producing
anaerobic humus toilets -- and do it all sooner rather than later. In letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, a lady said (in partial support), " In the case of a standard toilet, it is a waste of resources to flush away feces with drinking water and then spend millions of dollars on a sewage system, then separate them in a sewage treatment plant." http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/null-39356472.html

Best Wishes & Happy New Year,
Robert

On 3-Jan-10, at 12:43 AM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:

Hi folks

As I was digging around the economics of the Lake Erie Pipeline when I stumbled across some interesting toilet info. Now I'm requesting a national ban on 13 L toilets.  The note is below if your curious.

Lulu :0)

--- On Sun, 1/3/10, Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:

From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Subject: Canadian Ban needed on 13L Toilets
To: braidp1 at parl.gc.ca, mintc at tc.gc.ca, scarpf at parl.gc.ca, Prentice.J at parl.gc.ca, DucepG at parl.gc.ca, LaytoJ at parl.gc.ca
Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 12:34 AM

The US has banned the use of 13 litre toilets since 1994 and the state of California is phasing out 6L toilets in favour of high efficiency toilets that use 4.8 litres or less but in Canada, we still allow for the sale of the 13 litre toilets and it puts a heavy burden upon municipalities and Canadian Taxpayers.

According to a report by the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, in 2005 it is estimated that one in four toilets installed in Canada were the wasteful 13L toilets. Those "new" toilets resulted in 8690 megalitres of water being wasted needlessly, enough to fill 3476 Olympic Sized Pools. To view this report, visit here:
http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/13L%20Toilets%20Sales%20Report.pdf

Consider that water-efficient toilets use about 60 percent less water than the old style 13-litre toilets and that, on average, every Canadian flushes over 80 litres of water down the toilet each day. Mandating efficient six-litre toilets would result, over time, in a water savings well in excess 500-billion litres a year.

Across Ontario there are numerous rebate programs in place to replace older model toilets but it would be far more cost effective to simply ban the sale of them. Most of these units are produced in the US where they can't lawfully use them. It would not significantly impact Canadian industries to change the laws.

The ban on 13 litre toilets would save municipalities money on energy costs. According to a report produced by Power Application Group on behalf of the Independent Energy System Operator (IESO), water treatment and pumping and sewage treatment makes up 33% of municipal electricity usage. To view the report visit here:

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/bi/Ontario_Municipalities-An_Electricity_Profile_January2008.pdf

A ban on 13 Litre toilets would help to offset the need for municipalities to seek "new" water sources.The reduced energy costs for municipalities across the country would be significant and it would help to reduce carbon emissions and facilitate cost savings for Canadian consumers. It's a win win situation.

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2
519-885-7619_______________________________________________
All mailing list
All at gren.ca
http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca

_______________________________________________
All mailing list
All at gren.ca
http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100103/25075deb/attachment.html>