Watch Your Wallets – Genivar Has The Septic Re-Inspection Contract (2-43)

Genivar is the engineering firm that started the big lie that the E. Coli. in the lake at Sauble is from septic systems.

Genivar is the engineering firm that recommended a 70 million dollar Sauble sewer system “solution” and then contrived a phony “problem” for their 70 million dollar “solution” to solve.

Genivar is the engineering firm that was fired because their misrepresentations cost the people of the Town 1million dollars and produced nothing but headaches, grief, shady science, and a worthless report (which is on hold still).

There is broad agreement that we need some form of septic re-inspection program.

But in the search for someone to do the septic re-inspection program, it should have been clear to council that Genivar has a huge conflict of interest and thus should not even be considered.

In the November 6th council meeting, Concillor Jackson clearly explained the conflict of interest concern.

I see the conflict as follows:

  1. Genivar has a history of finding problems that do not exist.
  1. Genivar has made it clear through their own actions that they need to be carefully watched.
  1. Genivar stands to gain a $70 million dollar contract.
  1. The more “problems” that are found in the Sauble septic re-inspection program, the more upgrades will be required, even if the “problems” are contrived.
  1. The upgrades will be very expensive.
  1. The more expense to upgrade septic systems, the more attractive the $70 million dollar “solution” looks.
  1. The more attractive the $70 million solution looks, the better the chance that it will be implemented.
  1. The better the chance that it will be implemented, the better the chance that Genivar will get the contract to build the $70 million dollar plant.

Council in this situation should have looked to the two Sauble councillors for direction.  They should have looked to the Sauble Councillors for insight on what the people of Sauble want.  They should have looked to the Sauble councillors for insight into what is in the best interests of the people of Sauble.

So what did council do?

Six of them, over the protests of the Sauble representatives Janice Jackson and Marilyn and their one supporter Karen Klages voted to give the re-inspection contract to Genivar.

Six of them voted for a phoney reinspection program.

Six of them voted to screw the residents of Sauble.

Six of them voted us into a process that could cost each resident $50,000, unnecessarily.

One councillor, Jay Kirkland, said to reporter John Divinski that the septic re-inspection program has absolutely nothing to do with the Sauble sewer project and needs to proceed.

Councillor Kirkland is correct about the “needs to proceed”.

But “the septic re-inspection program has absolutely nothing to do with the Sauble sewer project”??

C’mon Councillor Kirkland.  Do you really think you are fooling anyone?  The septic re-inspection program in the hands of Genivar has everything to do with the Sauble sewers project.

There is no way I am going to get screwed around again.

Today I sent a “no trespass notice” to Genivar and to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

In brief it says “you are forbidden to come onto my property to do a septic inspection, and if you do trespass you will be arrested and charged with trespassing.”

A generic version of the letter is on my website as a word file at: Documents/2012 11 08 generic to genivar no tresspass.doc

I encourage all Sauble residents to send in a similar letter.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Watch Your Wallets – Genivar Has The Septic Re-Inspection Contract (2-43)

  1. cuvava says:


    I’m confused, what is this about? We haven’t heard anything about this. Is there a compulsary septic system inspection legally required or are they trying to create this? Or is this something this company is trying to push forward? Should we be posting that letter “do not trespass” on our property?
    Thanks for your info. And help!

    Sauble resident

    • cuvava says:

      Above question was sent to me from Sauble, can you please give the answers.

    • cgammie says:


      Most people are good about keeping their private systems working properly.
      But a few are not. And those few could be risking the health of others. So this council and the last one agreed that there should be an inspection program. I agree. There is a by-law in place that “legally” requires inspections.

      The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has an inspection protocol that is fine. TSBP didn’t like it and developed their own.
      The one developed by TSBP is very expensive, and is intrusive, and is mostly unnecessary, and is in my view designed to find problems even where there are none. So we should not accept the TSBP protocol.

      Genivar did not push for the by-law or the inspection protocol. They just bid on the contract. Still we should not let Genivar run it.

      You could post the no-trespass letter on your property, but for it to be legal you would have to meet a bunch of requirements in the “trespass to property Act”.

      Far simpler to just take the form letter, fill in your property address and send it off to Genivar. Once you do that, they have been notified, and they cannot trespass.

      Even if they hire someone else I will not let them on my property.

      But I will fully cooperate with “someone else” when they adopt the Provincial Government’s inspection protocol.


  2. Chris says:

    Hi Craig,

    GENIVAR was not low bid on this project, Gerrits Drilling & Engineering was but the incorrect rsults were presented by Carol House. She was notified of her mathematical error nearly one week prior to the meeting but REFUSED to change the report.

    GENIVAR had a per site cost of about $180/site and Gerrits had a per site cost of $175/site. This information is presented in her report available online at;

    Click to access 19F6E70404AF4B9984C1C0D48BF68336-CBO41-2012.pdf

    But they multiplied GENIVAR’s number by 4,689 sites, but Gerrits’ by 4,869…..why were they not multiplied by the same number of inspections? If there are 4,689 septics to inspect, how can Gerrits do 4,869!?!?

    • cgammie says:

      Chris: You should have got the contract. What would you quote for doing the inspections according to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Inspection Protocol instead of the TSBP protocol?


      • Chris says:

        Hi Craig,

        I’m not trying to argue who to award the contract to really, it was a rated proposal rather than low bid so they don’t have to give the contract to low bidder, but I repeatedly asked Carol House to change the report to reflect my accurate costs so that Council could be presented with accurate information.

        I was working with Dr. Doug Joy from the Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre on this proposal and he was saying the general rule was about $75 – $200/site depending on what they were asking to be involved in the inspection.

        Janice Jackson has been very helpful, she took my concerns to Council on November 6th but I see that the media is still stating that GENIVAR had the lowest bid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s