<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16945" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Lu Robert et al:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You mentioned Cl- and the nasties it
produces. This is now being address with de-chlorination by adding
suphites to the water after the Cl- has had its contact time. For the time
being this appears to be temporary as Cl- is being phased out and UV is being
brought in to many of the WPCPs. UV is very expensive to buy,
operate and service. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A 'not so water dependent' means to dispose or
recycle waste is very appealing, however I have lived with another person who is
more of a hunter gatherer (def modern shopper). She is exposed and drawn
to the current, but wasteful, modern ways. As you know when most things
are advertised as 'Green' it means they come in a green, plastic,
container.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The old saying <FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>"Our house is clean enough to be happy, and dirty enough to be healthy"
may not be fully understood or accepted by many people today.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To "ban" 13 litre toilets seems more political than
objective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Randy</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=butterflybluelu@rogers.com
href="mailto:butterflybluelu@rogers.com">Louisette Lanteigne</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=all@gren.ca
href="mailto:all@gren.ca">all@gren.ca</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 04, 2010 12:39
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [All] Better Planning needed for
Water Services</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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
<EM>larger projects</EM> 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!</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lulu :0)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 1/3/10, Randy B. McLean
<I><randybmclean@rogers.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From:
Randy B. McLean <randybmclean@rogers.com><BR>Subject: Re: [All]
Fw: Canadian Ban needed on 13L Toilets<BR>To: "Robert Milligan"
<mill@continuum.org>, "Louisette Lanteigne"
<butterflybluelu@rogers.com><BR>Cc: all@gren.ca<BR>Date: Sunday,
January 3, 2010, 7:34 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1406803613>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lu and Robert:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jet toilets are not bad. A lot of
none North Americans like bidets and they use more water and little
toilet paper.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Transporting waste with water has
been a fundamental paradox of the industrial age. Turns out
we are just like bacteria after all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2 cent Randy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=mill@continuum.org
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mill@continuum.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:mill@continuum.org">Robert Milligan</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=butterflybluelu@rogers.com
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=butterflybluelu@rogers.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:butterflybluelu@rogers.com">Louisette Lanteigne</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=all@gren.ca
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=all@gren.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:all@gren.ca">all@gren.ca</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 03, 2010
2:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [All] Fw: Canadian
Ban needed on 13L Toilets</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi Lulu,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I agree as a first step, but then ban the 6L, then the 4.8,
ending up with energy (methane & hydrogen) & humus
producing</DIV>
<DIV>anaerobic humus toilets -- and do it all sooner rather than
later. In letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, a lady said (in partial
support), "<SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; FONT-FAMILY: arial"> 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.<SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica">" <A
href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/null-39356472.html"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/null-39356472.html</A></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best Wishes & Happy New Year,</DIV>
<DIV>Robert</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 3-Jan-10, at 12:43 AM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Hi folks</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lulu :0)<BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 1/3/10, Louisette
Lanteigne <I><<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=butterflybluelu@rogers.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:butterflybluelu@rogers.com">butterflybluelu@rogers.com</A>></I></B>
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From:
Louisette Lanteigne <<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=butterflybluelu@rogers.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:butterflybluelu@rogers.com">butterflybluelu@rogers.com</A>><BR>Subject:
Canadian Ban needed on 13L Toilets<BR>To: <A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=braidp1@parl.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:braidp1@parl.gc.ca">braidp1@parl.gc.ca</A>,
<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mintc@tc.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:mintc@tc.gc.ca">mintc@tc.gc.ca</A>, <A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=scarpf@parl.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:scarpf@parl.gc.ca">scarpf@parl.gc.ca</A>,
<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca">Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca</A>,
<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DucepG@parl.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:DucepG@parl.gc.ca">DucepG@parl.gc.ca</A>,
<A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca">LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca</A><BR>Date:
Sunday, January 3, 2010, 12:34 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv675297625>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV id=yiv258215542>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/13L%20Toilets%20Sales%20Report.pdf"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/13L%20Toilets%20Sales%20Report.pdf</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/bi/Ontario_Municipalities-An_Electricity_Profile_January2008.pdf"
target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/bi/Ontario_Municipalities-An_Electricity_Profile_January2008.pdf</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you kindly for your time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Louisette Lanteigne</DIV>
<DIV>700 Star Flower Ave.</DIV>
<DIV>Waterloo Ontario</DIV>
<DIV>N2V 2L2</DIV>
<DIV>519-885-7619</DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>_______________________________________________<BR>All
mailing list<BR><A
href="http://ca.mc883.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=All@gren.ca"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:All@gren.ca">All@gren.ca</A><BR>http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<HR>
<DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>All
mailing
list<BR>All@gren.ca<BR>http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>All mailing
list<BR>All@gren.ca<BR>http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>