Town seeking to recoup some of the millions spent on designing and building a second water source, which delivered an unusable water supply
Woodstock has taken legal action to recoup at least a portion of the millions of dollars spent to design and build a failed second well to secure a dependable water source for the next several decades.
The town filed a statement of claim against Dillon Consulting Limited on Dec. 31 in the Court of King’s Bench in Woodstock.
While the statement doesn’t specify the amount of money the town hopes to recoup, the suit seeks construction costs, damages for additional expenses, court costs and potentially additional costs.
The lawsuit is the latest chapter in a project that has been underway for over a decade. The project swung from high hopes to major disappointment as the town sought to secure a dependable backup water source for its main well located on a St. John River island in Lower Woodstock.
Council launched the search for a second water supply in 2014 after a severe ice jam knocked out the causeway and power grid to the town’s main well, leaving the town without water. While town and NB Power crews managed to limit the amount of time Woodstock residents spent without water, the experience demonstrated the town’s precarious position because of a single water source.
Woodstock consulting engineer Ken Hannah began searching for a second water source shortly after the 2014 scare. Dillon Consulting became involved after purchasing Hannah’s firm.
In its statement of claim, Woodstock legal representative Stewart McLevey noted that the town retained Dillon Consulting in early 2017 to design and construct a Grafton wellhouse with a manganese treatment plant, septic system, and water transmission to connect to the Grafton well.
The town claims Dillon identified Grafton as the most suitable site for the town’s second well.
The town and Dillon agreed the Grafton well could support the Woodstock water supply on its own if required.
With Dillon in charge, the town completed the design and construction in 2021.
With funding support from provincial and federal governments, the town invested an estimated $4 million in the project.
The project appeared to be heading in the right direction as the work to bring the well online showed initial promise. In February 2020, then-Carleton MLA Stewart Fairgrieve and Andrea Anderson-Mason, the New Brunswick minister for the Regional Development Corporation at the time, joined then-Mayor Art Slipp to announce RDC’s contribution of $800,000 to the $2.4 million portion of the well project at the time.
The River Valley Sun news story then announced a pending $900,000 in federal funding for the project.
The story, however, began to sour in 2021, following the completion of the project. According to Woodstock’s statement of claim, Dillon discovered water tests indicating water quality, including high salinity and hardness, fell short of meeting standards. Dillon began remedial efforts.
The town contends that Dillon confirmed to the town in the spring of 2023 that the well could not be used in its current state.
In its statement, the town told the court that it contracted CBCL in April 2024 to carry out further tests of the Grafton Well water. The CBCL report indicated that the water was safe to drink only when pumped at a low volume.
“CBCL further found that the water would not be of a standard expected of residents for the same reasons identified by the Defendant (Dillon), and should not be blended with the existing water supply,” the town said in its legal statement.
According to the town’s claim, salvaging the Grafton well would require a $5 million treatment plant, which would cost between $300,000 and $400,000 annually to operate.
Concerns about Woodstock’s deteriorating water supply remain an ongoing issue for staff and council. The town is currently debating water and sewer rate changes, which will result in significant rate hikes for many residents.
Meanwhile, Woodstock CAO Allan Walker and Utilities Director John Lyons recently updated the council on significant infrastructure projects to address areas of concern. Those upgrades included drilling a test well near, but separate, from the town’s main well but from the same water source.
Town officials acknowledged that these utility upgrades would drain available capital and hinder finding the available funding to build the required $5 million treatment plant in Grafton, as well as the extensive annual operating costs.
The town’s statement of claim calls on the court to award the town financial relief from Dillon, citing several failures by the consulting firm.
The town said Dillon’s failures included:
- Deciding to continue the construction of the well in the Grafton location despite concerns raised with water quality;
- Failing to construct a water treatment facility with the Grafton Well to mitigate the water quality issues;
- Failing to bring the water quality concerns to the Plaintiff (town) in a timely fashion;
- Failing to employ agents, contractors and/or subcontractors with the required expertise to construct a well and water treatment facility;
- Failing to follow the Plaintiff’s instructions with respect to the construction of the Grafton Well, and
- Such further and other particulars of Negligence as may become known.
Based on what it identified as the consulting firm’s failures, the town asked the court to award the following:
- Special damages for the extra expenses incurred by the Plaintiff to remediate and/replace the Grafton Well;
- Damages for the breach of contract and Negligence;
- Damage
- The cost of this action
- Such other and further relief as the Honourable Court may deem just.
Dillon Consulting has not yet filed a response to Woodstock’s statement of claim.
