Headline News

Orangeville eyes water, sewer legislation to avoid backflow contamination

September 25, 2025   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

Orangeville is taking steps to prevent drinking water backflow contamination.

Discussion about such things can be arduous with sentences bogged down by technical jargon.

But, apparently, Ryan Ondusko, the town’s public works manager, had an easy way about his message during Orangeville council’s Sept. 22 public meeting.

“Some people would find a presentation about water a bit dry,” Deputy Mayor Todd Taylor punned. “I thought it really flowed well.”

Orangeville doesn’t have a Backflow Prevention Bylaw for drinking water services, despite there being such a recommendation from the aftermath of the inquiry into the May 2000 Walkerton drinking water E. coli outbreak.

The inquiry’s report states that “as part of their comprehensive distribution system program, water providers should have active programs, working together with building inspectors and public health agencies, to detect and deter cross-contamination.”

The report also points out how water distribution systems should have regularly tested backflow prevention valves.

Backflow incidents have contaminated drinking water distribution systems around the world. Backflow conditions can jeopardize system water quality. The responsibility for establishing and administering a cross-connection control program is with the individual municipality or water supplier.

Stratford’s 30,000 residents contended with a red, foamy substance from a car wash that was discovered in the drinking water system in 2005. It closed businesses and schools, and some residents were unable to drink the water that came from their taps for a number of days.

An investigation showed that a backflow prevention device was required.

“Car washes are a good example of a process that has water, soap, wax, and chemicals introduced into a single process line,” Ondusko said.

He said cross-connections are present in every drinking water supply system. Cross-connections that are not protected against backflow are potentially a dangerous source of contamination.

When backflow occurs through an unprotected cross-connection, pollutants and contaminants can enter the private plumbing system and the municipal water distribution system and be delivered to other consumers or locations.

Water typically flows within a drinking water system in one direction. If the water within the system begins to flow in the opposite direction as a result of back pressure or back-siphonage, there is a possibility for contamination.

That happens because of breaks or repairs to watermains, firefighting activities, or reductions in water supply pressure.

“It is important to note that the Town of Orangeville relies on two separate types of storage to supply day-to-day and fire-flow demand,” he said. “An in-ground reservoir such as the dungeon reservoir on Blind Line and above-ground reservoirs such as the tower on B Line.”

He said above-ground reservoirs aren’t as susceptible to significant drops in pressure. In-ground reservoirs have slight problems in that operating pressure is supplied every day, every year, by way of continual pumps.

Power outages and mechanical failures can hamper in-ground systems. Water towers don’t require the same equipment.

A Kensington Place resident asked if backflow referred to backwashing a residential pool.

“Typically, residential properties wouldn’t be concerned in the backflow bylaw,” Ondusko said. “If there is repeat offences, let’s say determined through non-usual processes or something, we could consider looking at individual properties. But the average residential homeowner would never have to worry about this bylaw.”

Ondusko said the town’s primary concern would be industrial water system users.

“It’s not typically something that would be seen on a residential property,” he said.

The public meeting continued with an introduction to a proposed amendment to the town’s 1994 sanitary discharge bylaw.

“I don’t have any puns for this, so you’re going to have to carry the show for yourself,” Taylor said to Ondusko.

Ondusko said the town needs to ensure that discharge entering the sanitary and stormwater networks meets standards to protect the natural environment and infrastructure.

Ensuring limits on parameters for stormwater discharge will protect the stormwater management systems and ponds from requiring expensive pre-mature rehabilitation, and spills containment and remediation.

Ensuring limits on parameters for wastewater discharge will protect the sanitary pump stations and Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) from expensive repairs, premature upgrades, and expansion.

Orangeville’s total daily flow is about 66 per cent of the rated capacity. But there’s increased demand on the strength of the inbound flow due to more industrial processes, low flow fixtures, and reduced groundwater/rainwater infiltration. Rainwater and groundwater dilute the water going into the plant.

The lessening of the water infusion increases sewage strength, Ondusko said.

So a Sewer Discharge Bylaw would protect municipal stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.

“The town currently spends over $200,000 a year flushing and cleaning sanitary and storm mains due to excessive sediment, grease, and uncleaned sewage stations due to fog, fats, oils, greases, as well flushing of disposable wipes and sanitary products,” Ondusko said.

The updated sewer discharge bylaw will require properties that have existing oil and grit separators, grease traps, sediment interceptors, and dental waste amalgam separators to require maintenance schedules and records.

“This requires some maintenance and clean-out of these separators on an annual basis at minimum and complete maintenance as per the manufacturers’ recommendations,” he said.

Basically, Ondusko said in a roundabout way, sound maintenance will save the town coin that would have been spent on flushing sewer system mains and cleaning storm management ponds.

Councillor Joe Andrews asked if legislation governing sanitary discharge would touch on the resident’s previous question regarding draining and cleaning residential pools.

“Is that something that falls under this proposed bylaw?” Andrews said.

Ondusko said there are sections that pertain to discharging chlorinated water from swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas.

“The use of a dechlorination device would allow a homeowner to discharge into the storm sewer,” Ondusko. “We prefer that it’s not discharged into the wastewater.”

Coun. Tess Prendergast said the sanitary discharge bylaw and the previously discussed backflow prevention issue cite environmental protection as justification for implementation.

“I’m wondering if these changes go beyond the Ontario Building Code and would they then be considered green development standards and not be applicable under Bill 17?” she said.

Green development standards are local rules written by municipalities to guide new development towards sustainable building practices. Bill 17 is the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, which was adopted this year.

Tony Dulisse, the town’s transportation and development manager, said the bylaws must be passed by the municipality and are not necessarily protected by the building code.

“My understanding is they do not conflict with green initiative standards,” he said.

“I’m just wondering if they can be challenged later by developers as something that’s extra on top of the building code’s minimal standards,” Prendergast said.

“I don’t think they would be,” said Tim Kocialek, the town’s infrastructure services general manager. “They’re a standard that’s done across municipalities, as Mr. Ondusko mentioned to the backflow preventers.”

And afterwards: “They do help the environment, but I don’t think they can be appealed,” Kocialek said.

Readers Comments (0)