July 24

Would you run your household this way? Your farm? Your business? Imagine a married couple with no kids. They’ve been married for more than a few years, and they want children. They want them badly. But nothing yet. So they keep trying. Then a sales rep comes along and explains that if they buy this bus—say a luxurious, shiny, 12-seater Sprinter XDL— they will be ready when the kids start popping out.

Better to have too much room than not enough. That’s the sales pitch. But the couple are already struggling to maintain their road-beaten Honda Accord. There is no way they can pay for a bus. They are reasonable people, but at this moment, they are emotionally vulnerable.

Don’t worry, says the pitchman: “The kids, they are a comin’. I can feel it—lots of them. In any case, don’t be caught short. Even if the kids haven’t arrived yet, and aren’t coming any time soon, you’ll regret it when you can’t squeeze your theoretical brood into your Honda.”

To do this, however, they will need to go deep in debt. On the other hand, they will rest easy knowing they are ready to motor when the litter of kids arrive. They are assured it makes sense to plan ahead. “It’s about peace of mind,” the pitchman intones as the couple sign away their savings.

It turns out a bus costs a lot more to operate and maintain. To fill with gas. Replace the oil. Change the tires. It isn’t long before it is obvious to the couple that they have made a terrible decision. But what is done is done. There is no refund coming. No going back.

The answer is that you wouldn’t spend money this way. So why is Shire Hall pushing ahead with waterworks expansion we can’t afford, for a population only developers say is coming, to build plants and pipes we don’t need? That we may never need? How is it that we are still having this conversation? On July 24, Council is expected to vote up or down on this project.

I want to be fair to the waterworks official(s) who answered my questions about a study Shire Hall commissioned in 2014 that recommended Picton should continue to draw its water from the bay, but from a new intake pipe. The respondents put time, energy and likely sincere beliefs into preparing answers. (The full response can be found below).

I appreciate the answers. They may even be technically justifiable. But it is a terrifying outlook.

Essentially, the argument goes that, yes, we are massively overbuilding waterworks, but we are doing so because it could happen. It’s not predicted by the experts. It’s not predicted by history or experience. But it could happen. It might happen. Better to have too much capacity than not enough, goes the reasoning.

The respondent goes on to observe that if every house were built, sold, and occupied in every subdivision that could one day be developed in Picton, Bloomfield, and Wellington, the municipality, in theory, might need this capacity one day.

Then the argument turns surreal.

“If we only plan for the next 20–25 years, as some traditional forecasts like Watson’s do, we risk building infrastructure that reaches its limit halfway through its expected life,” wrote the unnamed waterworks official. “That can lead to expensive and disruptive upgrades sooner than necessary. Since most of the cost lies in installing the infrastructure—not the pipe size itself—it makes sense to plan ahead.”

The notion, then, is to plan for a theoretical maximum rather than a reasonable forecast of an unknown future. Who does this? Who mortgages their lives this way?

Okay, let’s catch our breath. The respondent has correctly identified the risk of less-than-optimal capacity in the face of a sudden (unprecedented) swelling of the population. It is a risk. However, the writer fails to recognize the extraordinarily outsized risk of building capacity that isn’t needed and may never be used. Capacity that must be maintained and replaced in a few decades.

These risks are not comparable in scale, cost or impact on this community. They are not the same thing. It may be better for the utility operators, but it is dangerously reckless to its customers and owners.

The risk of a sudden upswing in population can be managed by regulating the pace of building permits. If Shire Hall sees a sharp increase in new homebuilding, it can press pause on new home construction until waterworks systems are expanded to meet demand. It is not ideal. But it is prudent and reasonable. It’s how you would manage your household.

On the other hand, building a massive water plant in Wellington, running a new pipe out into Lake Ontario, and then constructing a 20-kilometre pipeline under the Millennium Trail to Picton, costing a minimum of $300 million and doing so based solely on developers’ say so, is madness.

Shire Hall will have to borrow all of it, piling up debt to the tune of about $50,000 per water customer in Prince Edward County. There will be no going back. There will be no admitting a mistake and returning

The risks aren’t equivalent. They aren’t in the same universe. One is a challenge. The other is potentially ruinous. Make plans for July 24.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Questions and answers

In 2014,  R.V. Anderson concluded in a study the consultant prepared for the County that concluded that the preferred alternative for Picton’s water supply was a new intake in Picton Bay. Why was another engineering consulting firm, CIMA, asked to look at the same question less than a decade later?

The report you are referencing was a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment that focused on the replacement of the Picton Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake.

CIMA completed a Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan that looked to identify any possible efficiencies or interconnections between the six independent water systems across the County. This type of holistic study had not been completed before, and it is quite different from a Picton-specific intake replacement study.

The 2014 Picton Intake Report completed by R.V. Anderson was provided to CIMA as background information to inform the Regional Master Plan.

Why didn’t CIMA rely upon/reference the 2014 report in its Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan?

The 2014 Picton Intake Report was referenced on p. 125, 128 and identified as Reference material on p. 184 of the Regional Master Plan. The 2014 Picton Intake Report was also referenced in the Regional Master Plan display boards presented at the Public Consultation Centre held on April 11, 2024.

The findings from the 2014 Picton Intake Report were used to inform the proposed intake that forms part of Alternative #3 identified in the Regional Master Plan. Alternative #3 was to build a new WTP in Wellington and a new WTP in Picton.

Was the 2014 report deficient in its analysis or methods? If so, in what way? Were these deficiencies noted/reported at the time?

The 2014 Picton Intake Report was not deficient. As noted above, the scope of that EA was the replacement of the intake.

The development of Picton Terminals occurred after completion of the 2014 Picton Intake Report. The significance of this was demonstrated by the barge that sank at Picton Terminals and resulted in the temporary closure of the Picton WTP. The Picton Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) was amended in 2019 to include newly developed lands that fall within the two-hour time of travel zone. The IPZ Drinking Water Threats are continually updated by Quinte Source Water Protection.

What was the final disposition of the 2014 report? Why was it not acted upon?

The last paragraph of the Summary & Conclusions section the 2014 Picton Intake Report states “The County has advised that the project will only proceed when financing is in place, and that financing for the project is currently not available.” Funding was never established for the project and ultimately the Class EA validity period expired after five years (2019).

CIMA’s Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan (RWSSMP Jan 2025) conclusions were largely driven by expectations of population growth in Picton (From 4,576 to 31,657) and the inability of the existing plant to keep up with this growth.

But according to CIMA’s report, forecasts of population growth (Picton and Wellington) the engineering firm was relying on a Plan provided to them by the County –  Picton Development Plan for Commercial and Institutional development provided by The County (December 2022). This seems to be a critical document. Was it ever verified/validated/substantiated by an independent analyst/demographer/population modeller? Who prepared this plan?

It is difficult to have economists and demographers verify buildout projections as they typically perform projections for a 20–25-year horizon. Most water and wastewater infrastructure have a life expectancy that exceeds 20-25 years.

Given the fact that the RWSSMP design criteria specifies five-fold population growth, while Watson’s forecast indicates the County-wide population won’t reach these levels for more than a century and a half, can residents/water ratepayers rely upon the Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan?  If so, upon what basis?

Yes, residents and water ratepayers can rely on the Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan (RWSSMP). It’s been developed to strike a balance between planning for long-term infrastructure needs and making smart, responsible investments today.

The population figure of 31,657 used in the RWSSMP is what’s called a buildout projection. It reflects the maximum potential population if all available lands are fully developed. These long-range projections are important in water and wastewater planning because the systems we build today are meant to last 50 to 75 years or more.

If we only plan for the next 20–25 years, as some traditional forecasts like Watson’s do, we risk building infrastructure that reaches its limit halfway through its expected life. That can lead to expensive and disruptive upgrades sooner than necessary. Since most of the cost lies in installing the infrastructure — not the pipe size itself — it makes sense to plan ahead.

The plan doesn’t recommend building for the full 36 MLD of future capacity right away. Instead, it takes a phased approach, starting with a 12 MLD facility in Wellington that can be expanded later if needed. This gives us flexibility, while keeping costs in check.

We also understand that population growth projections can vary. The RWSSMP took into account not just historical trends, but also the large number of current planning applications and development interest in the County — especially in Picton and Wellington. Based on that, we’ve chosen to err on the side of being prepared, rather than risk falling short in the years to come.