Information continues to flow about the regional water treatment project being considered by the Town of Stonewall and RM of Woodlands.
Residents of both communities had the chance to attend open house events to learn more and provide feedback about the regional water project. The project would involve building a new water treatment plant, new groundwater supply wells, regional supply pipelines to Warren and Woodlands, a Warren reservoir and any other associated work. The new water treatment plant would be designed to meet projected water demands up to the year 2045.
The new water treatment plant would be built at the same location as the current one on 5th Street West. The new Warren reservoir would be located on a vacant lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of MacDonald Avenue and Collegiate Drive.
Currently, the Town of Stonewall operates a public water system with three operating groundwater supply wells and a water treatment plant that was built in 2006. The water treatment plant uses a chlorination system for raw water, and it has a 392-square-metre in-ground concrete storage reservoir with two cells and a distribution pumping system.
However, the existing reservoir is not big enough and it doesn’t provide enough water storage for fire fighting. It also won’t be able to meet the future water needs of the town.
Located on the water treatment plant property, the existing wells were built in the 1970s and 1980s and they draw water from the carbonate aquifer. They also need improvements and they’re not able to meet future water demands.
The existing groundwater has very high hardness and is highly mineralized. In the past, iron levels have exceeded guidelines.
In Warren, the community is served by a reservoir and pump house built in 1992 that only uses chlorination for treatment. Raw water comes from a single groundwater well that’s located 12 metres west of the pump house. The 103-square-metre storage capacity is not enough to provide fire protection or to meet the community’s needs for future water storage.
The treated water exceeds the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water’s esthetic objectives for hardness. According to information presented at the open house, other treatment options like an ion exchange would not reduce any total dissolved solids but it would increase the sodium content of the finished water, which could contribute to hypertension.
The Woodlands community doesn’t have an operating public water system. In 1998, a distribution system was installed to accommodate a future public water system.
The proposed new water treatment plant would include three new wells and would use a reverse osmosis treatment process. Caustic soda would be used for pH adjustment and stabilization. Ultraviolet light would be used for primary disinfection, followed by chlorine for secondary disinfection. Reverse osmosis reduces dissolved components, improves taste and softens the water.
“Reverse osmosis systems are the gold standard in water treatment and have been installed in dozens of communities using ground water sources to improve the quality of water to citizens,” said Wally Melnyk, CAO for the Town of Stonewall.
Concentrate produced by the reverse osmosis system would be discharged to the lagoon in the winter and spring and to the Grassmere drain in the summer and fall. The Environmental Act proposal was submitted in June 2024.
According to the materials presented at the open house, there would be no aquifer contamination. The central reverse osmosis system would reduce the impacts of discharge from individual home softeners or home reverse osmosis systems.
The estimated overall project cost would be $37,281,000, with more than $25 million covered by federal and provincial grants plus funding from the Manitoba Water Services Board.
In total, the two municipalities would be responsible for $11,923,201. Stonewall’s portion would be $5,392,877 for 84 per cent of the water treatment plant costs. Woodlands’ portion would be $6,530, 324 for 16 per cent of the water treatment plant, plus pipelines and the Warren reservoir. Each municipality would likely cover the municipal portion through utility surplus, reserves and borrowing.
The town and RM don’t yet have a direct estimate of the operational costs of the proposed reverse osmosis plant. However, they gathered information about operating costs at similar plants in the province. From those numbers, they generated an estimate that compared the potential cost of water from a reverse osmosis plant to the current system, including potential cost savings from elimination of the need for a softener and associated costs.
According to a brochure provided at the Stonewall open house event, the cost of water produced through a reverse osmosis treatment plant will be higher than the current cost of town water, but some potential savings could help to offset the cost. The calculations take into account the potential household savings on costs such as softener salt, as well as on installing, repairing or replacing a softener or residential reverse osmosis system. The brochure also notes that residents could save due to increased lifespan of fixtures and hot water tanks.
The current system costs Stonewall residents $1.89 per cubic metre, broken down to 31 cents for water treatment, 70 cents for water transportation and distribution and 88 cents for sewer.
The proposed reverse osmosis system would cost Stonewall residents an estimated $3.68 per cubic metre, broken down to $2.10 for water treatment, 70 cents for water transportation and distribution and 88 cents for sewer costs.
Each of the rates is also subject to a quarterly $22.50 administrative fee.
The brochure provided a quarterly utility cost comparison for a typical family of four in Stonewall. With the current non-reverse osmosis system, the consumption cost of $1.89 per cubic metre would result in an estimated quarterly charge of about $100.17, plus an administrative fee of $22.50. In total, the estimated net quarterly cost of the current system is $122.67.
With the proposed reverse osmosis water system, the consumption cost of $3.68 per cubic metre would result in estimated quarterly charge in Stonewall of about $195.04, plus an administrative fee of $22.50. The estimated quarterly cost would be $217.54, minus potential cost savings of $110 (due to the elimination of need for softener salt, elimination of need to install or replace a residential softener with costs factored over 10 years, and increased lifespan of the hot water tank, fixtures and taps). With these potential savings factored in, the estimated net quarterly cost using the proposed reverse osmosis system would be $117.54 in Stonewall.
Meanwhile, in the RM of Woodlands, the current system costs residents $4.56 per cubic metre, broken down to $2.96 for the Warren reservoir and $1.60 for sewer costs.
The proposed reverse osmosis system would cost Woodlands residents an estimated $6.60 per cubic metre, broken down to $2.10 for the water treatment plant, 15 cents for transmission pipelines, 65 cents for the Warren reservoir, $2.10 for the distribution system in Warren and $1.60 for sewer costs.
In 2022, the average quarterly water usage per household in Warren was 45.21 cubic meters. Based on a quarterly consumption rate of 46 cubic metres, the current non-reverse osmosis system the current rate of $4.56 per cubic metre would result in a consumption charge of $209.79, plus a $13.79 administrative fee. In total, the estimated net quarterly cost of the current system is $223.55.
With the proposed reverse osmosis water system, the consumption cost of $6.60 per cubic metre would result in estimated quarterly charge in of $303.60, plus an administrative fee of $13.79. The estimated quarterly cost would be $317.39, minus potential cost savings of $112.50 (due to the elimination of need for softener salt, elimination of need to install or replace a residential softener with costs factored over 10 years, and increased lifespan of the hot water tank, fixtures and taps). With these potential savings factored in, the estimated net quarterly cost using the proposed reverse osmosis system would be $204.89 in Woodlands.
Dr. Eva Pip, a retired professor of toxicology and water quality at the University of Winnipeg, outlined some of the pros and cons of a reverse osmosis system.
For the pros, she said most (but not all) of the contaminants are removed, as well as pathogens such as bacteria, protozoa and viruses.
For the cons, she said reverse osmosis systems are corrosive and waste up to 30 per cent of the water. In addition, only a small percentage of the water is consumed, while the rest of the “expensive reverse osmosis water” is used to flush toilets, water lawns, wash cars and other uses.
Pip added that reverse osmosis also removes healthy minerals from the water.
“It removes most —not all — of beneficial minerals like calcium and magnesium,” said Pip, who opposed a reverse osmosis plant in the Beausejour area.
“Hard water is much more beneficial for health, provided it is not above 500 mg per litre. Fluoride is less of a concern because we get it in toothpastes and mouthwashes and at the dentist’s office.”
Pip also expressed environmental concerns about reverse osmosis systems.
“The wasted water contains the concentrated chemicals that have been removed. If it ends up in a river or lake, this can add nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as other undesirable materials that may have been in the raw water,” she said.
“It will also add total dissolved solids (TDS). This is a concern if the receiving water body has a TDS level that is less than that of the concentrate. This can affect fish and other aquatic organisms.”
Options for alternative systems would depend on the initial concern, she added.
“Hardness and iron can be treated simply by flocculation and aeration,” Pip said. “If other substances are of concern, treatments can be tailored and still adequately treat large volumes.”
As an example, she points to the relatively new Winnipeg drinking water treatment plant.
“Reverse osmosis is an extreme water treatment that removes most chemicals and is usually applied in situations where other treatments cannot cope. However, it is contrary to the principles of water conservation, and less wasteful and extreme treatments should be considered unless the raw water quality is very poor,” she said.
“The province has been putting in reverse osmosis systems in communities everywhere, whether this level of treatment is justified or not. With climate change and expected changes in precipitation and aquifers, we should be strongly promoting water conservation wherever possible if we want to plan responsibly for the future.”
Some local residents are also voicing concerns about the proposed project.
Rob Patterson has lived in Stonewall for 40 years and is concerned about the town’s plans for the reverse osmosis plant.
“As a lay person and a taxpayer, you just sit back and start peeling back the layers on something like this, and it just doesn’t add up. This project, as far as I’m concerned, is very ill-conceived,” he said.
“Our aquifer is good. We’ve got lots of very good water here, albeit it’s hard. There has been no health concerns ever brought to council that we are aware of, saying that our water has got contaminants or health issues. They do routine water testing here.”
Patterson also expressed concern about the amount of water that would be wasted through the reverse osmosis system.
“The water waste will be sent to lagoons or sent down the drainage ditch, which will eventually end up in the river and the lake,” he said.
“We’ve always been taught as young folks to turn off the tap and not waste the water. This is a major waste of good water so that we can have a niche water product here in town. The water supply that we’re getting now doesn’t waste any of that.”
Cost is another concern for Anderson, who noted that a large amount of money has already been spent on engineers’ drawings for the proposed plant.
“Through the numbers that they supplied at the open house, our water rates will go up 100 to 150 per cent per quarter, and that’s just in the first year. That is a significant amount of money,” he said.
“There’s a ripple effect to this as well. If our water prices are going to go up that much, businesses in town will have to reflect those costs on their prices. It’s also a loss for businesses in town that sell salt or other water treatments.”
In addition, he questions the calculations the town used for the possible savings associated with the new system, since he uses fewer than 15 bags of salt per year and his water softener continues to work fine for 20 years and counting. The only time he’s replaced a few fixtures in his home was for a renovation project. The rest remain original to when they built their house in 1994.
Patterson suggested that the current plant could be updated and expanded for significantly less cost.
“One of the biggest things that struck us at the open house was that members of council are fixated on the word ‘grant.’ This grant has hijacked their reasoning as to why we need this. The grant is attached to the regional scheme for getting water for Warren and Woodlands as well,” he said.
“I realize that Warren and Woodlands have water supply issues there, but at the same time, there are alternatives for them to get their own water supply. In Stonewall, our water is fine. We’ve got lots of good water here. Why do we need to go down this road of getting a very expensive and complex unit to supply us and putting our fees way up? It just doesn’t make any sense. We don’t have to jump on this grant. If it’s not good for the town at this time, we don’t need to take it.”
All in all, Patterson felt like the open house events were more of a sales pitch than an information session.
“My question is why are we doing this? Many people have sent letters in opposition to this. There are also many people that are for it,” he said.
“If we don’t do something about this now and if we don’t voice our opinions now, it’s going to be too late.”
More details about the proposed water treatment project will be provided at public hearings that will be held in each municipality in early 2025. If approved, construction could begin in May 2025 with estimated project completion in December 2026.
