Feature Article September 4, 2002
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Sydenham water problemsby Wilma KennyIts hard to get a glass of good potable water from a well in Sydenham village--any well, unless the water is first treated to remove contamination. Sydenham village, a community of about 900 people living in 270 households, is located on limestone in a valley at the western end of Sydenham Lake. (The eastern end of the lake lies within the southernmost tip of the Canadian Shield.) Sydenham Lake is headwaters for Millhaven Creek, which flows through the village from the dam on George Street, to Odessa and eventually Lake Ontario.
Village residents obtain their water from private wells and discharge their sewage into private septic systems. Water quality surveys done in 66, 70, 76, 81, 83, 90 and 97 have shown that many of the individual wells are contaminated with nitrates, coliforms (including, in some cases, e-coli) and chlorides. These studies identified several reasons for the poor water quality: defective and undersize private septic tank and tile bed systems, high density housing in the central town area, and bedrock located close to the surface. Village residents rejected proposals for water and sewage services in Sydenham in 1970 and 1983 because of high construction costs. However, in 1985, Loughborough Township got provincial funding to upgrade individual systems. New wells were drilled, point-of-use treatment units were installed and septic systems were improved. This helped, but in 97, bacterial contamination was still infecting 17% of the wells (an improvement over 26% in 83,) and 36% of the wells were contaminated with nitrates. Contamination appeared to be spread throughout the whole community. (During the dry summer last year, our well, which had not shown contamination in over 20 years, had a coliform/e.coli count that has required the water to be boiled since then.)
Following the 97 report, the township received funding to do an environmental study report, which looked at various possible solutions within the natural, social and economic environments of the village. This report, completed by Tottem, Sims, Hubicki in November 2001, is available at Sydenham Library. Although it looks intimidating, much of it is appendix; the study itself is only 70 pages. It identifies nine possible solutions, from doing nothing to connecting to Kingstons water supply, and concludes: A communal water system is the preferred alternative. Surface water (i.e., Sydenham Lake), though more expensive, would provide a more secure long-term quality of water than ground-water. Likewise, it recommends that the most economic way to prevent continued degradation of groundwater would be to install a communal sewage treatment system. It also reports that the results of two public meetings indicated: Community residents are aware of their water quality and sewage problems (and) desire a solution, but are also concerned with costs and government funding availability.
A review of the report raises questions. How necessary would sewage treatment be, if clean communal water were provided? What about the two schools, which serve an area far beyond Sydenham village, and bring an estimated 1330 students plus their teachers into the village 5 days a week, for 10 months of the year? Their impact is not fully discussed, perhaps in part because the school board did not respond to invitations to the public meetings.
The study draws heavily on information from the 1996 census. Thus, it concludes that 46.6% of the village households occupy rented privately owned dwellings, but does not recognize that 55 of these households are located within the two Loughborough Housing Associations apartment buildings. It assumes that village growth is being limited by poor water quality, but does not mention other limitations, such as geography: i.e., Sydenham is in a valley, with a lake on one side, and a swampy creek on another. It also assumes that increased development, an expanded community, and more tourism are important village goals. While this may or may not be so, there is no indication in the study as to how the studys authors arrived at these village goals.
It also seems irrelevant to speak of Sydenhams effect on the water quality of Millhaven Creek, as assessed by a monitoring station in Odessa. (Page 53-54). The creek passes through large filter-beds of cattails between Sydenham and county road 38 which should provide some degree of cleansing: there is no consideration of the potential for re-pollution by farms between CR 38 and Odessa.
Sydenham residents are concerned about the cost of any water system to individual households. According to Mayor Leonard, council is trying to get all the numbers together: actual costs, and available funding, before calling the next public meeting. He hopes this may be possible by some time in October. Meanwhile, interested residents might find pages 33 to 61 of the study (the review of options) excellent preparation for the meeting.
