Feature Article December 4, 2003
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeOutgoing Council Gives Green Light to Sydenham Water
On Friday November 28, South Frontenacs Sydenham Water Steering Committee, after reviewing letters from the KFL&A Health Unit and the Ministry of the Environment, recommended that the incoming council should proceed with plans for a water treatment plant for the village of Sydenham.
Earlier this fall, in response to pressure from the Sydenham Safe Water Association (SSWA), Council had had the village wells retested for bacteria and nitrates. (Previous testing, in 1997, had shown 36% of village wells were contaminated by nitrates, and 17% had bacteria.) Tests done October 2003 found only 6% of wells with high nitrates, but 40% of samples had bacterial contamination. Dr Ian Gemmill, Medical Officer of Health, states: "There are remedies to address bacteriological quality, some of them more effective than others. The definitive solution to this problem is to have a secure supply of water that is treated and monitored...While bottled water can provide protection (from nitrates), treated water that addresses the nitrate issue would also be a satisfactory solution. In summary, the Health Unit will always recommend that a definitive solution to providing the best quality of water is preferred. Other less reliable and satisfactory mechanisms may be used and if there is no municipal system, this responsibility rests with the homeowner." He goes on to suggest that "children and pregnant women do not consume water from private wells in the township.
The MOE, after reviewing the test results, states: "In summary, the water quality results show a persistent groundwater quality problem, primarily bacteria and nitrates, within the village of Sydenham. The groundwater quality problems are attributed to sewage from individual subsurface disposal systems. These groundwater problems are a health-related issue. The municipality needs to proceed immediately with corrective actions to address this issue."
Richard Munroe, chair of the SSWA, a group which claims to represent 90% of the villagers, says the group is very disappointed with the steering committees recommendation. He pointed out that although concern about high nitrate levels had been one of the primary driving factors behind the present water project, the SSWAs testing of wells this spring also showed a considerable drop in nitrate levels. (To 8.6% from 1997's 36%.) Munroe states: "Pretty well everything we have researched confirms that treatment of sewage should be the priority in situations such as exist here."
David Waugh, another member of SSWA, says no one disputes that there are problems with Sydenham water, and theres need for corrective action. "But," he asks, "Do we need to spend seven million dollars to provide a water treatment system for less than 260 houses and businesses? Are there not less expensive ways to provide clean water to those who need it, so we can use the rest of the money to treat the sewage and stop the increasing pollution of the aquifer?"
Project tenders have all come in above budget: CAO Greg Burns says he hopes there will be some way of getting increased provincial funding to help make up the shortfall. No suggested payment plan has yet been offered to village residents. Present estimates of average cost per household for initial installation run from $4000 to $10, 000 or more, depending on frontage, setback, etc.
