- AGENDA ESQUIMALT COTW MEETING 13 JUNE: INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION
- MINUTES: CALWMC 11 MAY MEETING
- ARESST STEPS UP CAMPAIGN AGAINST SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
- LETTER: BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SEWAGE PROJECT NEEDED (Atwell)
- LETTER: NEW GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECONSIDER SEWAGE PLANT (Pietraszek)
- LETTER: SEWAGE MONEY BETTER SPENT ON TOXIN PREVENTION (Furber x2)
- LETTER: CHANGE OF COURSE ON SEWAGE STILL POSSIBLE (Bergbusch)
- LETTER: SPARSE INFORMATION FUELLING SEWAGE PROJECT (Noyes)
- LETTER: REDUCE WASTED SPENDING, HELP BC FAMILIES (Greenhow)
- LETTER: SEWAGE, AMALGAMATION AND FAMILIES FIRST (Greenhow)
- LETTER: STILL PLENTY OF TIME FOR SEWAGE DEBATE (Newcomb)
- LAW WOULD FORCE BAY AREA CITIES TO PLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE
- SCIENTISTS ZERO IN ON CULPRITS BEHIND PUGET SOUND WATER PROBLEMS
------------------------------
AGENDA ESQUIMALT COTW MEETING 13 JUNE: INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION
5. PRESENTATIONS:
(2) Bob Laurie, Chris Corps and Jon O’Riordan, Sequel IRM Inc (http://www.sequelirm.com/)., Integrated Resource Management.
------------------------------
MINUTES: CALWMC 11 MAY MEETING, excerpts:
Deborah Dickson – spoke to agenda item #9 North Shore Integrated Resource Recovery Study. She requested that the committee keep an open mind regarding integrated resource recovery.
6.#ERM 11-39 Integration of Liquid and Solid Waste Management Plans – Feasibility Study
MOVED by Director Lucas, SECONDED by Director Brownoff, that the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee:
1. receive this report for information;
2. request that staff forward the feasibility study on integrating liquid and solid waste management plans to the Ministry of Environment for comment;
3. engage the Province to change the current regulatory regime to allow development of an integrated plan for liquid and solid waste; and
4. add the feasibility study to a joint meeting of the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee, the Environmental Sustainability Committee and the Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Commission.
The floor was opened for discussion. The committee requested that delegations be allowed to speak at the joint meeting.
9.#EWW 11-38 North Shore Integrated Resource Recovery Study – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program
J. Hull highlighted that the study done by Fidelis Resource Group for the North Shore is similar to what the CRD is discussing. The current configuration does not preclude any of the recommendations in the Fidelis study. This is a preliminary study; additional work will be required to firm up the concept.
The committee requested that this report be put on the agenda for the joint meeting of the CALWMC and the Environmental Sustainability Committee on May 25, 2011.
MOVED by Director Herbert, SECONDED by Director Lucas, that the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee receive this report for information.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, 29 June 2011.
7.#EWW 11-36 Community Amenities Funding – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program
J. Hull reviewed the staff report, and emphasized that while it is not within the CRD Board’s legal authority to provide amenities funding, the CRD can mitigate the impact of a facility on a community hosting a CRD facility.
MOVED by Director Herbert, SECONDED by Director Hunter, that the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee receive this report for information.
The floor was opened for discussion. Topics included:
- CRD’s legislative authority to provide grants, designate parks and provide mitigation
- Mitigation versus amenities
- Examples of past CRD mitigation efforts
CARRIED
9.#EWW 11-38 North Shore Integrated Resource Recovery Study – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program
J. Hull highlighted that the study done by Fidelis Resource Group for the North Shore is similar to what the CRD is discussing. The current configuration does not preclude any of the recommendations in the Fidelis study. This is a preliminary study; additional work will be required to firm up the concept.
The committee requested that this report be put on the agenda for the joint meeting of the CALWMC and the Environmental Sustainability Committee on May 25, 2011.
MOVED by Director Herbert, SECONDED by Director Lucas, that the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee receive this report for information.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, 29 June 2011.
------------------------------
ARESST STEPS UP CAMPAIGN AGAINST SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Frank Stanford
CFAX 1070
June 9 2011
An organization devoted to stopping the Capital Region's secondary sewage treatment project says even if the system is built as currently proposed,. at a cost of approximately 3/4 of a billion dollars...it "would be a mistake to turn it on".
That comment is from the lobby group's chair, John Bergbusch. He says it would be better to waste the cost of the building the system, than to build it and then spend even more money operating it.
Bergbusch's group includes a number of scientists who say the current system of screening effluent before it is discharged into the ocean is effectively a treatment system that is just as good as the land-based project being planned.
------------------------------
LETTER: BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SEWAGE PROJECT NEEDED (Atwell)
Letters
Saanich News
June 08, 2011
Re: Sewage forum comes too late (Our View, June 1)
Your editorial justly recognizes the members of ARESST who have taken it upon themselves to educate the public about our sewage system. This group arose because the CRD has inadequately informed the public on the science of sewage treatment.
Members of the CRD’s Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee have stated many times that land-based treatment is a moral issue whose time has come despite the failure of the 1992 referendum.
Little has changed since 1992, other than a federally and provincially adopted environmental order that will impose a fine of $15,000 per day if further treatment is not undertaken by 2016.
When you put this fine into the context of a $1-billion expenditure you realize that it is a toothless threat that would take the equivalent of 182 years to pay. In other words, there is no need to rush into this project while we hold upper-level governments accountable for their decisions.
Citizens demand the CRD document the efficacy of the existing sewage system and take their findings to the environment ministries. To date, any formal presentation suggesting we have a unique marine environment to efficiently disperse effluent has been suspiciously absent.
Richard Atwell
Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: NEW GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECONSIDER SEWAGE PLANT (Pietraszek)
Letters
Saanich News
June 08, 2011
Re: Sewage forum comes too late (Our View, June 1)
I disagree with your editorial on the sewage forum. The evidence is strong that the sewage treatment project will not benefit either public health or the marine environment.
Why spend $800 million on a project that is not necessary?
The Saanich News would do its readers a service if it called on the new premier and minister of environment to reconsider the proposed project.
At the very least, there should be a benefit cost analysis done before spending close to a billion dollars.
Ed Pietraszek
Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: SEWAGE MONEY BETTER SPENT ON TOXIN PREVENTION (Furber)
Letters
Victoria News and Goldstream Gazette
June 08, 2011
Re: Sewage forum comes too late (Our View, June 1)
In your editorial you complain “The ball started rolling a long time ago and it isn’t about to stop.” This may be correct, specially if we give in and in so doing, condone the Wrong Plan. As Eldridge Cleaver said “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem”.
We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to ensure their money is spent on initiatives that really make this a better world; not on ineffective perceptions rooted in misinformation.
The CRD’s $1-billion plan will simply remove the nutrients from Victoria’s sewage and deprive zillions of ocean critters of jobs and sustenance.
A young lady at the Forum asked the panel whether it was preferable to incinerate sludge and allow trace metals like mercury to pollute the air, or, allow them into the ocean? Obviously, neither. Instead, prevent them from entering the sewage in the first place. In fact, this is what the CRD is already doing, very effectively. Imagine their success if even a fraction of the $1 billion were diverted to further prevent nasties from entering the sewers.
Bob Furber
Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: CHANGE OF COURSE ON SEWAGE STILL POSSIBLE (Bergbusch)
Victoria News
June 08, 2011
Re: Sewage forum comes too late (Our View, June 1)
Just because the CRD has embarked on a course of action now four years old doesn’t mean the politicians can’t change their minds. The problem is they would have to admit they were and are wrong.
Land-based sewage treatment for the core municipalities is such a misguided, anti-environment policy that it must be stopped. Environmental policy should be evidence-based, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that the current sewage treatment system works brilliantly for the marine environment of the Juan de Fuca Strait. The pro-sewage treatment advocates should stop lying to themselves and the public and end this costly misadventure. The marine vegetation and creatures will thank them, and so will the taxpayers.
John Bergbusch
Victoria
------------------------------
LETTER: SPARSE INFORMATION FUELLING SEWAGE PROJECT (Noyes)
Letters
Victoria News
June 10, 2011
Most citizens, in the CRD, are unsure of all the reasons why we need further sewage treatment although it is not for a lack of interest.
The lack of information from the provincial government on why they mandated this project brings to mind the more recent HST introduction communication fiasco.
We deserve better especially when we could be talking a $1-billion project.
Even though money has been spent on this project it is a small amount relative to the estimated total cost of the project.
It seems that the citizens should have the right to be fully informed of the net benefits to the region’s environment, etc. and decide if it is justifies progressing further with this project.
Lets hope reason prevails in this case.
John Noyes
Esquimalt
------------------------------
LETTER: REDUCE WASTED SPENDING, HELP BC FAMILIES (Greenhow)
Letters
Victoria News
June 10, 2011
If Premier Christy Clark is really serious about putting families first then she can really help Greater Victoria residents in two ways.
First cancel the billion dollar plus sewer initiative and it will put money back into families pockets.
Secondly force amalgamation on the 13 Greater Victoria municipalities. This will put more money back into peoples pockets by having one council instead of 13. Also the CRD could be disbanded and save even more money for the people.
I doubt if Clark will have the political nerve to follow either suggestion, but if she did I am sure the electorate would back her re-election efforts.
Gordon Greenhow
Colwood
------------------------------------
LETTER: SEWAGE, AMALGAMATION AND FAMILIES FIRST (Greenhow)
Letters
Gordon Greenhow
Times Colonist
June 11, 2011
If Premier Christy Clark is serious about putting families first, she can really help Greater Victoria residents in two ways.
First, cancel the billion-dollar-plus sewer initiative to put money back into families pockets.
Second, force amalgamation on the 13 Greater Victoria municipalities. This will put more money back into people's pockets by having one council instead of 13.
Also, the Capital Regional District could be disbanded and save even more money.
Gordon Greenhow
Colwood
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=5227c8d2-99ab-4a8e-b188-b3d3f05887ca
------------------------------
LETTER: STILL PLENTY OF TIME FOR SEWAGE DEBATE (Newcomb)
Letters
Goldstream Gazette
June 09, 2011
Re: Sewage forum comes too late, Our View, June 1, 2011.
It’s totally a defeatist attitude for Black Press newspapers to say that an unnecessary, billion-dollar sludge-producing sewage plant should go ahead merely because ignorant Capital Regional District politicians have already spent some money on it.
There hasn’t even been a marine environmental impact assessment done yet, and the CRD doesn’t even really know where and how it can deal with all the sewage sludge produced.
The ARESST forum scientists and doctors shone a bright light on the foolishness of spending so much on a sewage plan that will deliver so little — while the real pollution problems are still not addressed.
Shame on Black Press.
John Newcomb
Saanich
------------------------------
ARESST: Rising sea levels that damage Macaulay and Clover Point sewage pump stations would probably be less costly to repair than losing a sewage treatment plant at McLoughlin Point.
LAW WOULD FORCE BAY AREA CITIES TO PLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE
Julia Scott
Mercury News (San Mateo County, CA)
06/08/2011
Bay Area cities and counties whose jurisdictions contain the San Francisco and Oakland airports and the ports of Oakland and Redwood City would be required to prepare action plans to deal with rising sea levels under a trailblazing bill passed by the state Assembly last week.
The bill would require roughly 75 cities, counties, harbor districts, ports and sanitary districts that administer state-granted coastal public lands to have a plan in place by 2013 to contend with storm surges and flooding expected to result from rising sea levels by the end of the century. Besides airports and ports, it would apply to commercial harbors, wastewater treatment plants and protected tideland areas.
The legislation introduced by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, a Santa Monica Democrat, would require a mandatory plan for not only how to cope with encroaching tides, but a fiscal analysis of the damage that could occur if the public agency in question does not act in time and the cost of those projected repairs.
A Bay Area News Group analysis in 2010 showed only half of the Bay Area's 12 proposed major bayfront developments have a strategy for adapting to rising sea levels, which experts warn could cause $56.5 billion in property damage in San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara counties by the end of the century if left unchecked.
If it arrived today, a 100-year storm along the California coast would endanger about 480,000 people and $100 billion dollars ofproperty, according to the Pacific Institute.
"There were a number of local governments with these lands that were not responding. We need to prepare so that so we're not investing millions of dollars in construction that turns out to be threatened by sea level rise," said Curtis Fossum, executive officer of the State Lands Commission -- the agency that would administer the Brownley bill.
Land grant trustees are instructed to use recent scientific reports by the California Ocean Protection Council and others as a basis for modeling what could happen if sea levels rise by an average of 14 inches by 2050, and 55 inches by 2100. The numbers represent global greenhouse gas emissions scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the consensus of California's leading climate scientists.
The sea level rise action plans are due by July 2013, and are only required for land grant trustees whose activities generate more than $250,000 in annual revenues. State grants may be available to help prepare the plans, and trustees that still can't afford to create an action plan will be exempted.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it may have a rougher ride. A similar Brownley bill died in a Senate committee last year over concerns about "cost pressures."
A spokeswoman for Brownley said the cost of a sea level action plan was unclear but would probably be fairly low, since land trustees would be able to model their action plans on those of other cities. The exemptions are there for public entities that can't afford it, she added.
San Francisco Bay is the world's most urbanized estuary, but there are no laws or rules requiring cities or counties to take rising sea levels into account when they build.
The only attempt to impose such a rule was a move by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to amend its Bay Plan with language on climate change, but the process has been mired in politics for a year over objections from parts of the business community and groups like the San Mateo County Building Trades Council.
The groups feel the BCDC is overstretching its authority to regulate building on lands beyond a hundred-foot shoreline around the bay, but that is not the case, said Will Travis, executive director of the BCDC. The new language is also pretty benign because it does not carry any regulatory authority.
"They're saying we need to focus on creating jobs -- that we need to be focusing on the present," said Travis. "We're saying that ignoring the problem of sea level rise in the face of unemployment is not a prudent approach. We shouldn't be building something just to build something. We should be building it in the right places."
The real controversy will likely ensue when land trustees get a sense of just how expensive it is to raise a sea wall, the most likely form of short-term protection from rising sea levels. Adding miles of sea walls can cost millions of dollars.
The Brownley bill sidesteps those questions because it does not require anyone to implement their sea level rise action plan. That's a challenge for another day.
------------------------------
SCIENTISTS ZERO IN ON CULPRITS BEHIND PUGET SOUND WATER PROBLEMS
New studies of where pollutants originate give scientists a clearer idea of where problems lie. Who knew that so much trouble comes from forest lands?
Read the news article at:
------------------------------
END.
