List of Letters and Presentations

1. Tax Burden Shift, May 22, 2003

2. Re-zoning freeze July 3, 2003

3. Water Quality,  Observations Aug 25,2003

4. Continue Roads Committee Nov. 24, 2003 

5. Roads Recommendations Jan 2, 2004 

6. Water Quality submission to Bluewater May Apr 5, 2004

7. Funding proposal May 3, 2004

8. Water Quality submission to the County Jun 17, 2004 

9. 2004 Water Test Results

10. Official Plan Public Meeting presentation Sept 11, 2004

11. Presentation Dec.6, 2004 on measures to reduce the impact of CVA on individual properties.

12. Input for Bluewater Strategic Plan January 2005

13. Official Plan meeting Feb. 9, 2005 submission.

14. Water quality presentation April 11, 2005

15. Comments on the Draft Bluewater Strategic Plan April 16,  2005

16. Objection to Official Plan - Letter to County May 3, 2005

17. Objection to Official Plan - Letter to County May 30, 2005

18. Open Fires - Letter to Fire Services Manager August 16, 2005.

19. Report to Council - Water Protection Update August 8, 2006

20. Water Quality Report:

    Prime Minister

    Premier Ontario

    Huron County Warden

    Bluewater Mayor

21. Sewers Opinion August 4, 2007

22. Comments on the Huron County Official Plan and Sustainability May 22, 2008

23. ATVs on Municipal Property Presentation to Council June 23, 2008

24. Commercial Wind Farm Presentation to Council July 14 2008

25. Comments on Huron County Restructuring September 16, 2008

26. Presentation to council December 15 2008 on 2009 Taxes.

27. Presentation to council Jan. 12, 2009 on Commercial Wind Energy

28. Presentation to council May 4, 2009, Water Quality Report, 2009 Activities

    Presentation,  2008 Water Quality Report,  Zurich Drain Water Quality Enhancement Project and Ridgeway Drain Background

29. Presentation to Huron County Planning on Revisions to the Official Plan Oct. 8, 2009

    • Executive Summary for Bluewater Council

30. Comments on Bluewater's Facilities Review Oct 15, 2009

31. Tax Inequity presentation to Bluewater Council Nov. 16, 2009

    1. Presentation

    2. Written Report

Recommendations on the Commercial Scale Wind Energy Facilities By-Law to Bluewater Council

Presented by Paul Mennill, President, Bluewater Shoreline Residents’ Association   - July 14, 2008

I speak on behalf of the Board of BSRA. After much consideration, we make the following recommendation to Bluewater Council.

The set-back distance from all urban/settlement areas in Bluewater must be 2000 metres.  In other words, commercial scale wind turbines should not be constructed any closer than 2 kilometers from the Shoreline, from the Bayfield Settlement Area, Dashwood, Zurich, St. Joseph, Varna, Hensall, Exeter, Blake, Brucefield, Kippen, and Clinton.

I would like to give 6 points which explain this recommendation.

1. The Debate on Windmills has intensified and informed opinion varies widely.

·        A strong state of uncertainty about the efficiency and the proper location of Wind Turbines still exists. Therefore Council should make decisions on the side of caution. It is important to protect our citizens, our landscape and our inheritance.

·        The world-wide debate on wind turbine projects is vigorous, ongoing and inconclusive.

·        The Province of Ontario has placed Council in a position where we seem forced to accept the inevitability of giant wind turbines without knowing all the information necessary to make wise decisions about where to locate them. This is the same government that in 2005 enacted the Provincial Policy Statement stating that important agricultural areas should be protected from non-related development. It also said that natural areas should be protected for the long term. It said that in agricultural areas, secondary uses must be limited in scale. One wonders why this same government seems to be encouraging the use of agricultural land and natural areas for large industrial-commercial wind operations.

·        This is the same government that said that it plans to support ethanol production by raising the required amount of ethanol in gasoline to 10% by 2010. However, just last week the Premier said he is rethinking this commitment because of the rise in food costs. If the government can rethink this part of its energy policy because of new information, then we can only conclude that it is quite possible it may re-think its policy on wind energy when it gets new information claiming that the set-backs were too short or that the costs of transmission lines are too great.

·        If we are forced to accept wind factories, then we must be very careful where we put them.

·        A survey of the literature makes it clear that some people will be winners and some people will be losers. The winners will be (1) the developers and utilities who will reduce their tax liability and increase their profits (2) the relatively few landowners who receive payments from the developers (3) suppliers of turbines and their agents. The losers will be (1) electricity consumers who are forced to pay higher costs of electricity (2) taxpayers who pay the taxes escaped by Wind Turbine developers who get the tax shelters (3) neighbours of wind turbine facilities who experience property value losses, noise from many turbines, and the possible health effects of low vibrations (4) citizens and tourists who are offended by the scenic impairment and environmental impacts.

·        We are not even certain that the development of wind energy will have a substantial effect in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions, because wind energy has to be backed up by other forms of energy.

2.0 Green Energy Sources have become popular.

• Popular opinion has clearly swung to the idea that we must do everything possible to combat climate change, and therefore we must support the development of renewable sources of energy. People love the IDEA of wind power. Wind energy is a FEEL-GOOD project.

• But what has also arisen is the concern that the IDEA of wind power leads to the REALITY of constructing gigantic machines in places never before considered industrial.

• A good example is very close by. Many people have commented about their own negative reactions as they drive through the 6 large turbines on highway 21 near Kettle Point. There is something shocking about their size and location, and their eerie sense of circular motion. The over-powering nature of those turbines located so close to the highway is clearly distracting to drivers. This wind-farm with the huge turbines is frightening for many people. It seems entirely wrong to drive through the agricultural and village landscape of the Bluewater highway only to encounter six turbines, each one higher than a 20 storey building.

• There have been many stories of people living near turbines who have had to leave their homes because they cannot sleep at night. These stories range from Huron County to Nova Scotia, from the USA to the Netherlands.

3.0 The Dilemma Faced by BSRA

• Since our mandate is to advance the interests of Shoreline Residents, we are clearly pleased that the draft by-law prohibits commercial scale wind energy facilities in the area west of highway 21.

• But, because there may be significant problems for many people living east of 21, the proposed setbacks are not enough.

• BSRA has been working for several years on community development projects which try to overcome the gap between Bluewater farmers and villagers, and Bluewater shoreline residents. We are trying hard to help bring the community together. We don’t want to jeopardize this process by opposing wind farms, because we know that some farmers stand to gain financially by locating commercial turbines on their properties. However, we know that there are many Bluewater residents both east and west of 21 who are opposed to huge commercial-industrial projects.

• We recognize that there has been an income crisis in farming. But we do not believe that the erection of industrial-commercial wind turbines is a positive part of the solution to the problem.

• In addition, there are many people who question the economic viability of wind power and who support other technologies which may be economically and environmentally superior.

• Our members have advised us to ask Council to base the by-laws on adequate research, on citizen input, on the protection of the environment and property values, and on human and animal health.

4. Geographic Differences in different provinces and countries

• Unlike countries that have developed large wind energy projects, it is very hard in rural southern Ontario to draw a line to say that the urban area stops here and the agricultural area starts there. Settlement patterns are quite different in different parts of the world.

• I have seen thousands of giant wind turbines in several parts of the world - most recently in Spain and Portugal. But never once have I seen a wind turbine project closer than 3 or 4 kilometers from the closest habitation. Usually they are much farther than that from any village or town. The reason for this is that the geography and settlement patterns in Spain and Portugal are radically different. All of the wind turbines that I saw are placed on mountains or extremely high ridges – well removed from any human habitations.

·        In our more densely populated rural areas on the flat terrain of southern Ontario, it is much more difficult to set the wind turbine projects back sufficiently from houses, businesses, and highways.

·        Even in countries with a geography closer to that of southern Ontario, like Germany and Holland, the setback distances are much greater than our draft by-law proposes (Germany 1600 metres, Holland 1800 metres).

·        Don’t assume that we can locate wind turbine projects in the same way as other countries or provinces which have a different physical geography and a different settlement/land-use pattern.

5. Examples of local struggles

• All across Ontario and many other places, citizens have filed formal objections to wind power projects. Some of these have gone to the OMB. These are not radical-fringe people but concerned, environmentally-aware, and well-informed citizens.

• Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanash has been struggling to pass a zoning by-law for two years. Their planner reported to Bluewater on May 12, 2008, that science-based evidence indicates that the setback may need to be larger than the proposed 600 metres from settlement areas and 450 metres from houses. She also reported that ACW has had to consider the clanking sounds of the turbines, the volume of the whooshing sound, the climatic conditions which increase the volume of noise, and the low level vibrations that are particularly bothersome at night-time.

• On Wolfe Island at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the battle has been strong. The citizens’ group called “Coalition to Protect Amherst Island” has made a compelling case that repetitive noise, low-frequency infra-sound from wind turbines, and flicker-effect may be implicated in serious health problems.

• According to the Orangeville Citizen, as recently as June 22, 2008, a meeting called by the Amaranth Citizens’ Coalition turned into a vigorous presentation by farmers and land-owners opposing the erection of wind turbines.

• The case of St. Lucie County Florida is particularly interesting because it involves the Florida Power and Light Company – the huge American corporation that is planning to build wind turbines here in Bluewater. The Florida Power and Light Company is the largest owner and operator of wind power projects in the United States. It has annual revenues of $16 billion. It is heavily involved in the production of electricity from natural gas, nuclear reactors, oil, coal-fired power stations and solar collectors. In St. Lucie County on the coastline of Florida, according to the Orlando Sun-Sentinel, the FLP has encountered a great deal of local opposition to its plan to locate giant turbines on beachfront conservation lands. “Fierce grass-roots opposition has arisen” says the Orlando newspaper. One wonders what kind of profits or incentives cause such a huge American corporation to place its attention on a small community like Bluewater in Canada. And why would Bluewater want to send profits to such a corporation?

• In the Province of Manitoba, citizens have caused a significant change in some setback requirements – from 500 metres to 2000 metres.

• These examples raise the question of whether Bluewater wants to enter such controversial and bitter conflicts. If not, Council should be very cautious in allowing wind factories close to the places where people live.

6. Scientific Comment

• Dr. Nina Pierpont, international authority on Wind-Turbine Syndrome, recommends an absolute minimum setback of 2000 metres. She presents case studies of 10 families affected by wind turbine syndrome whose symptoms include sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, and nausea.

• In France, the National Institute of Medicine recommends 1500 metre setbacks.

• Dutch scientist G.P. van den Berg has pointed out that 98-metre tall turbines in Germany have made more noise at night than was expected. This has had a significant impact on discussions about setbacks right around the world, including in Huron County.

• John Harrison, Professor of Physics at Queen's University in Ontario, in an important paper on noise effects on health, describes the misleading way in which noise levels from wind turbines are currently measured. By averaging the highs and lows of the sound over one hour to get a rating, all the peaks where the noise level is well above the permitted levels are erased. He says the Ontario guidelines are inadequate and that setbacks should be more than 1000 metres.

• William Palmer, an engineer from Paisley, Ontario, has said in a report on Setbacks to Wind Turbines in Ontario "The evidence makes it clear that to prevent being above the Ontario standard, no wind turbine with a noise characteristic such as the Vestas V82 can be located nearer than 900 metres from any house.  In some cases, the noise setback needs to be greater than 900 metres depending on the grouping of turbines.” He goes on to say that a noise setback to any home should be 1000 metres.

Exactly what are we suggesting to Council?

• The Board of BSRA is not opposed to wind-power as a potentially beneficial alternative energy source to meet a small amount of Canada’s power requirements. But we are opposed to the creation of industrial-scale wind-turbine installations which, by their size and noise, have the potential to damage the health of Bluewater residents and the natural environment of our landscape.

• We are pleased that the current proposal includes a prohibition on wind turbines west of highway 21. But as members of the larger Bluewater community, we believe that this does not go far enough.

• We recommend a set-back of 2000 metres from all urban/settlement areas (shoreline, hamlets, and villages).

• We are concerned about costs and inefficiencies, and recommend that the answers should be much clearer before Bluewater makes by-laws permitting giant turbines any closer than 2 kilometers from settlement areas.

• We fear that the Ontario guidelines will not sufficiently protect the natural environment, the health of some inhabitants, the landscape, and property values in the municipality.

Comments to Bluewater Planning Committee on All Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) on Public (Municipal) Property - June 23, 2008                                      

 - Presented by Jan Purvis on behalf of the Board of the Bluewater Shoreline Residents’ Association

As the Bluewater Municipal Council develops a policy to control and regulate ATV’s on municipal property, the Council should consider not only the issue of allowing ATV’s to travel on municipal roads but also the issue of allowing ATV’s to travel on municipal property and the beaches in Bluewater.

For the shoreline residents of Stanley West and Hay West, the issue of ATV’s on the beach is a significant one.   BSRA Board Members receive frequent calls expressing concern about ATV’s   on the beach.  

Residents’ concerns about ATV’s on the beach centre on these major points:

1.  Irresponsible driving. The ATV’s present a concern for the safety of children and others who use the beach. Often we see a group of ATV’s moving down the beaches (both public and private) at significant speeds with little apparent care for others on or near the beach.  

2. Environmental damage. Some drivers have no respect for the dunes or the beach vegetation. We are pleased that our beaches increasingly are being protected with dune grass – some of which has been planted by residents and some of which is naturally growing as a result of lower water levels. It is sad to see these natural improvements ripped apart by ATV operators.

3. Noise pollution. Sometimes we find that the noise generated by ATV’s on the beaches impairs the enjoyment of a peaceful afternoon or evening on the beach.  At night, the noise from ATV’s is particularly irritating.

Additional factors to consider:

1.  Provincial Legislation:  Ontario’s regulations regarding ATV’s clearly state that “no person shall operate an ORV in such a way as to disrupt or destroy the natural environment, including fish habitat, property and flora or fauna. 

2.  The Pinery Provincial Park:  This provincial park does not allow for the use of ATV’s in the park – due to the environmental damage they cause. If it is appropriate there to restrict the use of ATV’s, it is also appropriate for Bluewater’s public and private beaches.

3.  Blue Flag Program:  Blue Flag criterion #17 is clear on the matter of vehicles of any kind on the beach.  “On the beach there will be no unauthorized camping or driving and no dumping.”

4.  Green Ribbon Beach Program:  this program is still in its “pilot “stage but it clearly advocates that access of vehicles of any kind to the beach not be permitted.

5.  The Township of Huron-Kinloss:  this municipality has passed a By-Law stating: “The use of motorized vehicles is not permitted on the beach.”  (By-Law 2008-62)

6.  Special circumstances:  we recognize that there may be certain circumstances in which ATV use on the beach might be acceptable.  These situations could be handled through a “special permit” process.

RECOMMENDATION:  that the Municipality of Bluewater adopt a By-Law that prohibits the use of ATV’s on its municipal properties and on the beaches in Bluewater.

Comments on the Huron County Official Plan and Sustainability

2008 May 22                       - Paul Mennill, Bluewater Shoreline Residents’ Association

1. Introduction

·        BSRA is an umbrella organization for more than 50 Cottagers and Residents Associations on the shoreline of Lake Huron between (but not including) Port Blake and Bayfield.

·        BSRA is currently pursuing several major concerns: services to residents west of highway 21; surface and lake water quality; sky-rocketing property taxation; improved community development; shoreline regulation; effective representative government ; wind farm locations.

·        Today, as we look at updating the Huron County Official Plan, I will ask you to consider the following suggestions: be ready for a vastly different future; diversify the economy; improve environmental action, develop a more future-oriented education program; stay close to the citizens; respect community differences.

2. Huron County Review of its Official Plan and Sustainability Study

·        I commend County Council on undertaking this review and in seeking broad community input

·        I would also like to be able to commend the Council of 1998 who established an Official Plan which set out carefully articulated and far-reaching statements on how they thought the county should develop. In fact one of my main suggestions will be that Council should do a more vigorous job of actually implementing the guidelines which the Official Plan called for.

·        The current task, however, is not to look just at the past so much as the future. In other words,

“What kind of future do we want for ourselves, and for our grandchildren?”

3. The Future

·        It is important that the plan become more forward-looking and more flexible. The next 10 years will see deeply fundamental changes in our nation and in our local communities. I am not an expert, but I have been listening to some positive futurists (such as Canadian engineering Professor David Scott and American futurist Ray Kursweil) who predict that our world will soon be surprisingly different. Kursweil says there will be more changes in the next 20 years than there have been in the last 1000 years. Why? Our society will benefit from tremendous progress being made in information technology, in genetics, in robotics and in nano-technology. Here are some examples:

o       Soon our home computers and televisions will be fully integrated into one machine.

o       Remote surgery on humans will increasingly be performed from a great distance.

o       We will be able to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels, and we will rely on hydrogen for fuel

o       Our electricity will be created in much larger measure through solar collectors in addition to hydro and nuclear power

o       Genetic biology will bring about vastly increased agricultural productivity

o       Genetic biology will also mean that we will gain control of human diseases and the aging process to an unimaginable extent. Human life expectancies could double.

o       The average age of the population will rise even higher.

o       As we follow Canada’s immigration policies, our community will become increasingly multi-cultural. The need for improved community development programs will increase greatly.

o       Our urban areas will increase in population and our rural areas will continue to decrease.

·        In such a future, it will be critical that County Council develop improved procedures for staying in touch with all segments of the community and for keeping in touch with the rest of the developing world. We cannot afford to be insular or narrowly focused.

4. Economic Development

o       The current Official Plan places a very strong emphasis on agriculture and manufacturing. This is appropriate as agriculture and manufacturing have been the mainstays of the life of the county.

o       However, economic success in today’s globalized economies cannot be based on these sectors alone. We must pursue economic diversification. As a relatively small slice of the Ontario population and being located at some distance from a major city, Huron County is very vulnerable to population loss and employment loss.

o       The service industries are expanding and will continue to do so. While it is mentioned in the Official Plan, the potential impact of Tourism in Huron is not emphasized sufficiently. After all, tourism is the largest industry in the world and Huron County needs to take better advantage.

o       We should encourage facilities to attract tourists in all four seasons. We should also enhance the service base for residents who increasingly live along the lakeshore in winter as well as summer.

o       Services to older people need improving, and as the population ages and average life expectancy increases at the same time, this will become increasingly apparent.

o       We must stop the exodus of people who believe that health care in Huron County is not as good as elsewhere.

o       One of the keys to economic development is education. We need advanced educational opportunities for young people as well as middle-aged and older people. We must establish post-secondary programs so young people will be able to remain in the community and get a 21^st century education that will lead to rewarding lifestyles and employment.

5. Shoreline Development, Lake Huron, and the Environment

o       The Official Plan recognizes that significant development has taken place along the shores of Lake Huron. But there is a strong reluctance to accept the fact that many shoreline residents wish to live here through part or all of all four seasons.

o       The level of taxes raised on the shoreline is out of all proportion to the size of the shoreline population. In Bluewater for example, 40% of the taxes raised in 2008 will be paid by property owners west of highway 21 and south of Bayfield. Current changes in the assessment system will not significantly alter the problem of skyrocketing taxes on the shoreline.

o       A strong feeling exists on the shoreline that there is an unhealthy communication gap between lakeshore property owners and other citizens in the county. County Council should support vigorous efforts at community development to create more positive relationships among these groups.

o       While the motto “Ontario’s West Coast” is used liberally to attract attention to Huron County, we do not pay sufficient attention to our great natural resource in Lake Huron. BSRA and others have been studying water quality for many years. And the conclusion is clear: there is far too much e-coli contamination in the Lake. Our municipality has invested significant money in studying this issue. Yet the efforts to make improvements have not yet produced the desired results. This is a tragedy. There are regulations – provincial, federal, and international – which were designed to address this problem. However, it is our view that they are not fully enforced.

o       BSRA has called for compulsory septic inspection, proper fertilizer controls, and improved sewage systems. But progress is very slow. Until these things happen, it will be hard for Huron County to live up to the “Community Values” printed on page 12 of the Official Plan – where it says “The community values a healthy environment including the quality of the water and air…”

o       There are also other aspects to the future of our great lake that need serious attention from Huron County. As the American and worldwide demand for fresh water increases, what will we do to protect our own interests? What should be Huron County’s relationship with the International Joint Commission and other international bodies?

6. Governance

o       In order to deal with the rapidly changing future that lies in front of us, Council must find new ways to maintain close contact with society’s economic, social, and cultural leaders. A democratic government can only govern effectively if it remains close to the people.

o       To many citizens, County Council seems remote. The county should seek ways to respond to its citizens in more meaningful ways, and to seek input more openly and freely.

o       Current Council committee discussions could lead to a reduction in the number of county councillors. This would only serve to create more distance between the county and the citizens. It is critical that all segments of the population be adequately and directly represented on County Council.

o       Towns, villages, and settlement areas within the county have varying aspirations. They should be considered individually and where appropriate allowed to develop in varying ways.

o       The 1998 Official Plan asks community groups to “participate and be involved”. But some Huron County agencies have not been very good at responding to community concerns in a timely way. Not only council members, but also the bureaucrats have a responsibility to reach out to the community and to respond to community concerns in a positive and timely way.

7. Conclusion

o       I would like to re-emphasize two of my introductory comments.

o       Congratulations on undertaking this initiative of consultation!

o       When you re-construct the Official Plan, keep your eye on the need to be ready for a vastly different future, to diversify the economy, to improve environmental action particularly in the lake, to stay in close touch with all the groups of citizens in the county (not just a few), to respect community differences.

Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Project – Speaking Notes - August 04, 2007

My name is Paul Mennill and I am speaking on behalf of the Board of the Bluewater Shoreline Residents’ Association concerning the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Project.

1.1 BSRA is an umbrella federation of 54 residents’ associations on the shoreline north from Highway 83 to the southern edge of Bayfield. Of the 54 associations, about 17 will be directly affected by the sewer proposal.
1.2 The BSRA Board understands that there may be a variety of opinions within the BSRA territory ranging from those living north of St. Joseph to those living in denser subdivisions in the south
1.3 We have talked informally with many people on the shoreline, and recognize that there are differing views on whether Bluewater should join the Grand Bend sewer project
1.4 There are some residents who legitimately see the sewer project as an unneeded expense. Some people have recently installed new, up-to-date, and expensive septic systems. Others believe that the costs would simply outweigh the benefits.
1.5 On the other hand, there are many residents – perhaps a majority - who are strongly in favour of buying capacity now and hooking up to the system some year in the future. They tend to look at the project in environmental terms and in terms of long term planning and issues of economic development.
1.6 We have not had an opportunity to formally poll our members on this issue.
1.7 We thank the municipality for setting up this meeting today

2.1 The BSRA Board, recognizing that not all property owners in the different subdivisions see the issue in the same way, has met and taken a strong stance and that is what I will speak about today. Our stance is that Bluewater should buy the capacity to join the sewer project.
2.2 We have tried to view today’s situation from a future-oriented view – what will we wish we had done when we look back on this decision 10 or 20 or 30 years from now?

3.1 BSRA over the past 10 years has taken a strong stance on environmental issues and has done substantial work on these issues.
3.2 For example, we have been involved in measuring water quality for many years – together with the Municipality, ABCA, and the Huron County Health Unit. We have had on-going dialogue with Ministry of the Environment (including the Minister) and with other government offices. We have played a role on the Huron County Water Protection Steering Committee. And recently we have published a 28 page report on surface water quality issues in Bluewater – a report which is being read widely.
3.3 Therefore it only makes sense that we should look at this issue from the point of view of the environment.
3.4 There is a very significant water quality issue that has not been addressed satisfactorily. We have repeatedly stated that we believe there are three elements in our area that need to be improved – septic systems, faulty lagoons, and agricultural run-off. This emphasis on the three-pronged approach to cleaning up Lake Huron and the ravines was adopted by BSRA more than 3 years ago.
3.5 It is only logical, then, that BSRA believes that we should seize this opportunity to address one of the three causes of surface water pollution.
3.6 Bill Boussy has made it very clear that the Province has a real drive to move away from septic tank and leaching bed systems and into larger municipal treatment systems. Only advanced treatment can deal with the nitrates, phosphates, and other toxic chemicals that we use every day.
3.7 We need to help clean up the Great Lakes.
3.8 What is the best long-term planning for the future of our community? Joining a modern sewage treatment system is part of the answer. This will be a sewage treatment system that can be improved as required to deal with future standards. And the opportunity to join it is now.

4.1 Missed opportunities of the past have come back to haunt us – water line to Bayfield, sewer in Crediton.
4.2 When the water line for Highway 21 was first proposed, it also met with some opposition. In parts of the community, the conflict between proponents and opponents of the water line was substantial. But now the water line is regarded as a critically important part of life on the shoreline. Others are just getting it now. And still others wish they could get it.
4.3 When we have gone ahead with other utilities, like natural gas, it has made a big difference for the better.
4.4 Apparently, South Huron has seen the sewer line as an opportunity for them, which they do not wish to miss. We should do the same and join them.
4.5 Perhaps the day will come when the province decides that septic systems will no longer be allowed in the more densely populated areas. If that does happen, we will have to build a sewer system then – and the costs will be much higher.

5.1 We believe that the sewer line will increase property values.
5.2 That is a mixed blessing: many people like to think they are gaining on their property value – but it will also cause increases in assessment and therefore in taxation.
5.3 The increased taxation will increase the coffers of the municipality. That is part of the reason why we believe the sewer line will benefit the whole community of Bluewater.

6.1 The issue of costs is very significant. We understand that the sewer project will go ahead on a “user pay” basis. Perhaps in a perfect world, Bluewater would consider paying for most utilities from general tax revenues. The sense of a unified community would be greatly enhanced if our municipality as a whole could ensure that all parts of the community paid for upgrading the lagoons, building the sewers, delivering the water, and paying for recreational facilities. But at the present time, we recognize that we do not live in a perfect world, that money is short and taxes are high, that there is a great deal of history in paying for utilities in the past, and that a sense of equity dictates that “user pay” is the best approach at the present time.
6.2 Some leaders in Lambton Shores believe that senior levels of government are prepared to cover a large proportion of the initial costs. The Province is more likely to contribute significantly if all three municipalities work jointly on this project. If Bluewater simply waits and lets Lambton Shores and South Huron go ahead without us, we will likely be the losers in the long run.
6.3 We ask the Municipality to help property owners to spread the initial costs over time. Later we will ask the Municipality to allow property owners to spread the costs of hook-up to the system over time.

7.1 Connecting to the Grand Bend sewer will actually benefit the whole community of Bluewater, not just part. The areas on the sewer line will benefit directly, but the other areas within Bluewater will benefit indirectly.
7.2 Significant economic development is much more likely to take place if the sewer line is in place. If not, that economic development might simply go around Bluewater.
7.3 If the hook-up results in improved water quality in the lake, then all beach-goers can benefit, and ultimately our role as “Ontario’s West Coast” can be more fully realized.

8.1 The Bluewater Official Plan lays out “goals” which can be interpreted to support the concept of a sewer system.
8.2 For example, in section 2.2 of the Official Plan, it sets out the following 2 goals:
· “To improve the quality of water in ground water, rivers, streams, gullies, and Lake Huron”;
· “To ensure clean ravine and lake water for residents through the appropriate management of service and land use.”
8.3 When the Official Plan was in preparation in 2004-05, BSRA objected to the designations of “Seasonal” and “Year-round” within the Lakeshore Residential section. Council was told by the senior planner that the main rationale for including the “seasonal” designation was that there could be a massive septic failure in the Lakeshore Residential region and residents would have to find another place to live. Now we have an opportunity to solve the problem that he thought he saw – by connecting to the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment plant.

9.0 In summary, the Board of BSRA believes that the best option for the Municipality of Bluewater, from the environmental viewpoint and the long-term planning viewpoint, is to purchase capacity on the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Project.