Reducing leaks in pipes and considering time-of-use rates could save enough water to help Greater Sudbury avoid costly upgrades to the city's water system, says mayoral candidate Dan Melanson.
In a news release, Melanson says the city's water/wastewater master plan calls for $1.3 billion in work in the coming decades to ensure we have enough clean and safe water in the long term.
But Melanson says at least $6 million in water is lost every year because of leaks in the city's aging underground pipe system.
“The City of Greater Sudbury has indicated that Sudbury’s most populous area, from Gatchell to Garson, has a leakage rate of 28 per cent, more than double the average of cities in Canada,” Melanson writes.
According to population estimates, the masterplan estimates that our population will grow by about 7,000 people in the coming decades.
“Based on this growth, the city believes a new water treatment plant will be needed at Wanapitei in 12 years,” he wrote. “It will cost $400 million and is included in the $1.3 billion master plan final tally.
“If there was a way that price tag could be mitigated, or the time line extended beyond the 2030 date as indicated in the master plan, should we not be looking at other options available in order to save taxpayers’ money?”
To put off the work as long as possible, Melanson says more effort must be put into using new technology to significantly reduced the amount of water we lose to leaks.
“Other cities in Canada have embraced the new technology available to help find the leaks and repair them before they become an even more expensive problem,” he wrote. “One such company says that identifying the leaks and fixing them right away costs about four per cent of the cost of replacing a full pipe once the leak gives. To me, that is an incentive that is well worth implementing.”
And a comprehensive water conservation program that charges users different rates depending on when they use water could encourage even more conservation.
“We are already doing this with our energy costs with time-of-use pricing for electricity, whereby off-peak hours offer less expensive rates in which to do laundry or water lawns,” Melanson writes. “It is more than feasible that we can develop a water conservation system that will offer consumers incentives to reduce their water usage.”
Full text of Dan Melanson's release:
Managing Our Water Systems – Environmentally and Financially
Facts:
• The city’s Water and Wastewater Master Plan will cost taxpayers upwards of $1.3 billion
• Every year we are losing at least $6 million of treated water through leaks in pipes and every year that cost will be higher as existing leaks finally give out and new leaks occur. The City of Greater Sudbury has indicated that Sudbury’s most populous area from Gatchell to Garson has a leakage rate of 28 per cent, more than double the average of cities in Canada.
• There are options to lower the master plan price tag.
Water. It’s a commodity that most people, including myself, never think about until you turn the tap and it doesn’t come pouring out. However, the City of Greater Sudbury has been doing some thinking about water, and made public, its “Water and Waste Water Master Plan” with an eye watering price tag of $1.3 billion, on April 16th of this year.
The emphasis in the new Water and Wastewater Master Plan focuses primarily on “supply-side water management” to meet the growing demand for water.
Basically, supply-side water management tends to lean toward implementing new and costly infrastructure to meet the increasing demand for water whereas demand-side water management focuses on fixing leaks, repairing and upgrading infrastructure and introducing conservation techniques including incentives to lower the overall demand for water.
The Water/Wastewater Master Plan identifies a population increase of about 7,000 more people by 2046 (as per Hemson Consultants’ report commissioned by the city). Based on this growth, the city believes a new water treatment plant will be needed at Wanapitei in 12 years. It will cost $400 million and is included in the $1.3 billion master plan final tally.
If there was a way that price tag could be mitigated, or the time line extended beyond the 2030 date as indicated in the master plan, should we not be looking at other options available in order to save taxpayers’ money?
I believe that the city must deliver an integrated water management system to address all the challenges facing our water systems and that means integrating demand-side management strategies with existing supply-side management programs.
So how would implementing a demand-side water management program be able to do this?
1. Fix the infrastructure leaks
First, by minimizing the infrastructure leakages and the resulting “non-revenue water”. This is a major problem in Greater Sudbury. Every day we waste 6768 cubic metres of processed and treated water that leaks into the earth from water pipes. Some of this water also ends up in our sewer systems which means it’s also being re-treated in our wastewater treatment plants. In a year, this equates to over 2.4 million cubic meters of water, a sum equivalent to 10 per cent of the total water production in 2015 and with a yearly value of $6 million. This total does not factor in other costs which include the energy necessary for the pumps which have to work harder due to pipes not being pressurized because of leaks, the reduction of life expectancy for these pumps and other equipment, or the costs associated with having to fix much larger problems when leaks are left to get worse and whole pipes need to be replaced. In simple terms we have to fix the leaks.
Other cities in Canada have embraced the new technology available to help find the leaks and repair them before they become an even more expensive problem. One such company says that identifying the leaks and fixing them right away costs about 4 per cent of the cost of replacing a full pipe once the leak gives. To me, that is an incentive that is well worth implementing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGSI_q4r40
2. Implement a comprehensive system-wide water conservation program
By implementing a comprehensive system-wide water conservation program to make all users aware of the inherent value of our water resources and delivery system. We are already doing this with our energy costs with time-of-use pricing for electricity whereby off-peak hours offer less expensive rates in which to do laundry or water lawns. It is more than feasible that we can develop a water conservation system that will offer consumers incentives to reduce their water usage.
With the combination of these two actions alone we can create sufficient surplus water capacity to supply an additional population of approximately 45,000, which is far above the growth projected by the city which would decrease the need for a $400 million new treatment plan.
So, one would think that if the City was made aware of these potential savings, management and council would be most interested in looking into and evaluating the merits of a including a demand-side management program, but that’s not the case. An advocate for water efficiency and water conservation has made a number of attempts to get the attention of the Project Manager, and others at Tom Davies Square, and has not received a reply.
For over 15 years, Bob Tate has been an Earth Care Sudbury advocate and compiled an impressive body of work to substantiate his demand-side management and conservation position. He has provided his insights and documentation to the Water Project Manager at the City and after months of waiting and follow up telephone messages, has not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment of the receipt of his correspondence.
I’ve read Bob’s material, and while I most certainly am not a professional engineer, I have to say from my perspective it makes a lot of common sense, and deserves to be reviewed and debated by council, and the taxpayers, who will be on the hook to pay for the $1.3 billion that the Water and Wastewater Master Plan will potentially cost.
Council is obligated to look at any and all options with respect to ensuring the long-term viability of our water system. If fixing our leaky pipes and implementing a conservation program will meet and or exceed our needs well into the foreseeable future, why would we be focused on a master plan that is centered around building a new system, when there is significant savings in fixing what we have?
In order to ensure that all options are fully explored with respect to the management of our water resources, treatment, and delivery systems, as mayor I will bring forth a resolution to create a water management board which would have the responsibility to provide full oversight for all aspects of our water system from water shed protection through to the final delivery at your tap.
I think we need to refocus our needs, wants and priorities with respect to our water master plan, into one that meets our needs and is also affordable, it is my firm belief that by bringing all aspects of our water system together under one management board, will provide cost effective common sense decisions, and result in an affordable, safe, efficient, and dependable water system for the foreseeable future.
For further information or questions, please contact:
Dan Melanson
[email protected]
705-521-3536
