Safe

Waterworks director’s comments stir confusion

Picton’s water is safe. According to Shire Hall, the water supply in Picton is “perfectly safe to drink and use.” Moreover, the water is frequently tested to ensure it is safe.

“We continually monitor and verify water quality to ensure it is meeting the required quality standards and limits for water potability,” Shire Hall said in response to The Times. “The Picton Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution System consistently achieves 100 per cent compliance with provincial regulations.”

It seems a pretty clear statement. It should be the end of the matter.

Yet, online commentary and letters to the editor in recent days have warned that the water source in Picton might not be safe forever. “Not moving forward is a recipe to destroy the community,” wrote one letter writer. Such public comments in another place might have prompted an explanation or qualification from the County’s waterworks utility—a public service announcement. It didn’t, so The Times reached out to get a straight answer.

YES, BUT…
The response was an unequivocal yes—Picton’s water is safe—but it might not always be, Shire Hall replied. A variety of potential threats to the Picton water source include salt, fertilizer and pesticide runoff, and fuel storage around Picton Bay.

“It is at risk of becoming acutely contaminated in a variety of ways that the treatment plant may or may not be able to treat,” wrote Shire Hall in a statement prepared for The Times.

this statement because it lacks the basic context or evidence required to know what it means for residents’ safety. As such, it is needlessly alarming: Yes, Picton’s water is entirely safe, well protected, and 100 per cent compliant with provincial regulations— but it might not always be? How are residents to make sense of this?

Aren’t all water sources subject to risk of one sort or another? Sure, some may be better than others—but all water sources are exposed to threats. To failure. It is the job of the drinking water system operator to ensure the risks are being monitored, mitigated and managed.

Are the risks intensifying? Expanding? How does Picton Bay compare to other communities such as Belleville, Quinte West, Bath or Cornwall? How has the Picton water plant managed to provide safe, clean water for a century with such risks? Why did a 2014 detailed engineering study of Picton Bay recommend a new intake into the bay rather than a pipe to Wellington?

At least part of the online chatter stems from comments from the County’s waterworks chief, Don Caza, made to Council on August 27, that the County “as owners of the system have to do something. If something does happen because we are running something old I don’t think the province will look favourably on us.”

Understandably, Caza would prefer to take water from Wellington and pump it to Picton. The water in Wellington has fewer threats. It has a lower vulnerability score. It is a reasonable preference for the water system operator.

But that viewpoint cannot stand alone. Cost matters. Affordability matters. Perhaps a better water source might be found from a glacier in Jasper, Alberta— but most folks understand this could be expensive and impractical.

So, is it a preference or a necessity? Context is required.

As a collective, we make trade-offs, understanding that our drinking water utility manages risks, implements mitigation measures, and generally ensures the safety of the water supply. In fact, that is what the County waterworks does, as evidenced by 100 per cent compliance with provincial regulations.

Caza would prefer to run a new intake pipe into Lake Ontario, process the water through a new plant in Wellington, and pump it 20-kilometres to Picton. It’s an appealing prospect on its face, but it ignores a hard reality.

The spending required to do this is beyond our means. The cost is currently estimated at $130 million—part of a $360 million package of waterworks expenses contemplated over the next eight years. To be underwritten by just 5,200 households (or about $70,000 per household).

Council concluded in late August it was too much. Too much spending. Too much debt and too much risk. It understood, too, that $360 million was likely just a starting point. It is still stinging from the ongoing trunklines project through Wellington. Originally estimated at $12 million, the current cost exceeds $31 million. It is understood that such spending and debt would overwhelm this small rural community. Council understood the trade-offs and made the prudent call.

Simply saying that Wellington’s water is better than Picton’s is unhelpful. It is pulling the alarm bell because there might be a fire someday. It is politics. That is not the water system manager’s lane.