- CRD SEWAGE PLANT CAN PROCEED WITHOUT ANOTHER REFERENDUM
- RETURN TO BURNING GARBAGE AMONG OPTIONS CRD PONDERING (sewage mention)
- LRT STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE FAST-FERRY FIASCO (sewage mention)
- HIGH BACTERIA ADVISORY ISSUED AT HAMSTERLY BEACH (not sewage but geese)
- FEDS ACKNOWLEDGE BILLIONS TO UPGRADE WATER, SEWAGE SYSTEMS MAY FALL SHORT
- GUERNSEY WATER STUDY SEWAGE IMPACT ON SEA
------------------------------
CRD SEWAGE PLANT CAN PROCEED WITHOUT ANOTHER REFERENDUM
In response to my email to M. Furey, BC Municipal Inspector about the 1992 CRD sewage plant referendum, Furey sent email 21 July 2011:
Mr. John Newcomb
1675 Freeman Avenue
Victoria, BC V8P 1P5
Email: NewcombJohnHoward@
Further to my letter of March 9, 2011, and your email of May 18, 2011, the following information is provided in response to your question about whether the Capital Regional District (CRD) can hold a referendum on a proposed sewage treatment plant. Please accept my apology for the delayed response.
I understand that the CRD held a referendum on November 21, 1992, where the electors in the municipalities of Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, View Royal, Colwood and Langford were asked their opinion about three different sewage treatment systems. The majority of electors supported the method of treatment where sewage is passed through a screen before being discharged into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The solids are then transported to a landfill site. The electors did not support either primary or secondary sewage treatment systems.
Where a regional district holds a referendum, the provisions in Part 4 of the Local Government Act apply. For example, Section 159 indicates that the assent of the electors is obtained if a majority of the votes counted as valid are in favour of the bylaw or question. Further, if a bylaw that requires assent of the electors does not receive assent, a bylaw for the same purpose may not be submitted to the electors within 6 months.
It should also be noted that elements of the local government and provincial wastewater legislation have changed since the CRD held its referendum. The Municipal Act as it was known in 1992, was substantially revised and named the Local Government Act in 2000. In addition, the Regional District Liabilities Regulation (B.C. Reg 261/2004) was passed in 2004 that exempts regional districts from obtaining the approval of the electors where an approved Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is in place, which is the case with the proposed sewage treatment plant. Further, under the Environmental Management Act, the Municipal Sewage Regulation came into effect in 1999, which set new standards for treatment and discharge of liquid waste. The amended CRD LWMP was developed to meet those standards.
If you would like to view a copy of the Local Government Act and B.C. Regulation 261/2004, they are available on the following website: http://www.bclaws.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Mike FureyAssistant Deputy Minister
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
ARESST: Article below suggests CRD is considering burning garbage "...and possibly sewage". AECOM report notes biosolids on several pages (2, 3, 9,11, 16,18, 34, 36, 37, 51, 52, 55, 59, 60), but report doesn't mention proposed CRD sewage plant, and projects the current CRD biosolids amount of 5840 tonnes/yr to increase only by population growth.
RETURN TO BURNING GARBAGE AMONG OPTIONS CRD PONDERING
Natalie NorthSaanich News, Goldstream Gazette, Victoria News, Oak Bay News
July 19, 2011
It’s been decades since incineration was phased out by Island communities
as they moved to more environmental methods for dealing with garbage.
Now the Capital Regional District has put burning back on the agenda,
albeit at a very preliminary stage of planning for the future of the
area’s landfill.
Despite the discussion being in its infancy, Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin
said it’s important enough to get the public involved now.
“I’m not sure the public knows about this,” Fortin said. “Let’s face it,
we’re (talking about) burning garbage.”
The CRD board had a chance to mull over a $60,000-feasibility report of
energy recovery options and identified possible issues around the
financial benefits and public perception of incinerating household waste,
and possibly sewage.
Metro Vancouver is further along in the planning process for a new
waste-to-energy incineration facility, which would be built in Gold River.
The Ministry of Environment is expected to decide this week whether it
will approve the Lower Mainland plan, which involves barging waste to the
Island town. Transporting waste from Greater Victoria, Nanaimo and the
Cowichan Valley for incineration in Gold River was also considered in the
report.
“We’re nowhere near where the province wants us to be for recycling before
they’ll even look at incineration for garbage (in the CRD),” said Saanich
Counc. Judy Brownoff, noting that she has yet to personally come around to
the benefits of burning trash.
B.C. has a 70 per cent waste diversion rate goal. The Capital Region is
currently at 43 per cent diversion.
The Tri-Regional District Solid Waste Study, which looks at the Island
from Nanaimo south, was funded by the province and prepared by
environmental company Aecom.
The study looks at how to turn waste into liquid ethanol, which could be
treated to make electricity, and at a newer technology called “plasma
gasification.” Also considered was a stand alone mass burn facility in the
CRD.
A tri-regional waste-to-energy facility would receive an estimated 200,000
tonnes per year of waste. Hartland Landfill currently receives 140,000
tonnes annually and is projected to serve the region until 2035.
CRD staff will incorporate the study’s findings into the core area liquid
waste management plan and report back on Oct. 12 to the liquid waste
management committee.
By the numbers:
Cost of incinerating garbage, per tonne
Mass burn (tri-regional): $84 to $98; (CRD alone): $42 per tonne.
Gasification to ethanol: $136 per tonne
Plasma gasification to electricity: $152-155.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/
------------------------------
ARESST: Excerpt from article below: Greater Victoria taxpayers already face a billion dollar sewage treatment expenditure.
LRT STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE FAST-FERRY FIASCO
Better bus co-ordination, HOV lanes a more cost-effective transit solution
Bev Highton Times Colonist July 21, 2011
After breaking promises of a full review of all viable transit options on the Douglas Street corridor, B.C. Transit has produced its rapid transit plan, as well as plans for transit in Greater Victoria.
The plan calls for a $950-million LRT line between downtown Victoria and the West Shore. Direct and express buses from the West Shore communities could ultimately be largely diverted to Station Avenue in Langford. The Carey and Saanich Peninsula routes would terminate at Uptown, where passengers would be required to transfer to the LRT line.
The premise for justifying LRT is not based on revenues or forecast passenger volumes, but rather on a political decree by the former premier and transportation ministers that "Victoria will obtain a 12 per cent transit market share" - the same as Vancouver in 2008.
The number of North American metro areas with less than 750,000 population with a 12 per cent transit market share: None. The number with LRT: None.
Greater Victoria taxpayers already face a billion dollar sewage treatment expenditure.
In addition, Victoria residents face $457 million in infrastructure rehabilitation costs and a $70-million bridge. Esquimalt and other area municipalities are in similar situations. Saanich is doing the best job of directly addressing this problem. The Victoria Transit Commission, an independent taxing authority, has plans for a 43 per cent increase in the municipal share of transit costs in the next two years alone.
And this is before LRT. In spite of these looming financial pressures, proponents assert that the cost of LRT is just pennies per day.
Further, they assert that taxpayers should finance it because: - It would reduce their vehicle operating costs (even though their individual circumstances might dictate that they cannot work without the use of their vehicle); - Business owners could save parking spaces (even though parking spaces are not liquid assets); - Provincial and federal taxpayer dollars don't count (they come from some other taxpayer's pocket); and - It is the government's responsibility or mandate to enforce a different set of lifestyle choices on the private-vehicle owning public rather than encouraging different choices.
We believe the residents of Greater Victoria would strongly oppose any social engineering initiatives. The proponents then cite worthy goals such as energy conservation and emission reductions as well as improved public fitness - because walking to the transit stop could reduce obesity. They point to more efficient land development, because, apparently, people should live in more dense urban apartments next to transit stops and abandon single-family homes. They even assert that LRT is a cure for urban sprawl.
The LRT will become a yoke around the taxpayer's neck when costs go over budget, when ridership and revenue do not materialize, when the transit company drops bus routes and cuts service to trim costs and when infrastructure projects are delayed, becoming even more costly.
Meanwhile, local government will be locked into a 35-year public-private partnership contract to design, build and operate the LRT. The LRT proposal is reminiscent of the fast ferries fiasco, where a former government proclaimed that fast-ferry catamarans were the answer to a transportation problem. They not only did not solve the problem, they created a whole set of new ones. In this case, the stakes are much higher.
Shipping unwanted, expensive ferries to another country is much easier than removing $500 million worth of concrete and steel track from an LRT line.
The Capital Regional District Business and Residential Taxpayers Association and its consultants are continuing to build and document the case that highoccupancy vehicle lanes, along with the McKenzie interchange and a possible E&N component, would be preferable to LRT.
We could have better transportation choices, better transit travel time improvements and better emission reductions in onethird the time, at far less risk, and at one-tenth the price of LRT. It is a common-sense option that taxpayers might be able to afford.
- Bev Highton is chairman of the Capital Regional District Business and Residential Taxpayers Association.
------------------------------HIGH BACTERIA ADVISORY ISSUED AT HAMSTERLY BEACH
K Slavin
Victoria News
July 22, 2011
Swimmers are being advised not to beat the heat in the waters at Hamsterly Beach, due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
The Capital Regional District put out the warning Thursday stating "that swimming and wading in the water at Hamsterly Beach may be unsafe and is not recommended." The bacteria stems from Canada geese droppings, as the birds can frequently be spotted around the beach.
The parks and beach remain open, however signs are posted warning about the bacteria levels. The signs will be removed once samples of the water are again within acceptable limits, according to the Vancouver Island Health Authority.
According to the CRD website: "Swimming in water with unacceptable bacteria levels can increase the risk of ear, nose and throat infection or stomach illnesses."
Hamsterly Beach is located at the north end of Elk/Beaver Lake Regional Park.
For more information on the advisory, visit www.viha.ca/mho/water/beach_
------------------------------
FEDS ACKNOWLEDGE BILLIONS TO UPGRADE WATER, SEWAGE SYSTEMS MAY FALL SHORT
Mike De Souza,
Vancouver Sun
Postmedia News
July 26, 2011
Despite spending as much as $3.1 billion in recent years to upgrade water and sewage treatment systems, the federal government has acknowledged that the investments may not address a multibillion-dollar price tag for proposed regulations to crack down on water pollution from this infrastructure.
An Infrastructure Canada spokeswoman said that municipalities using the money were required to build projects based on old standards and not on a new set of draft regulations introduced by Environment Canada in March 2010 that could force cities to spend up to $20 billion in upgrades over the next two decades.
"Infrastructure Canada does not track funding that has gone specifically towards allowing municipalities to meet the draft wastewater system effluent regulations," wrote Jen Powroz in an email to Postmedia News. "The standards refer to the existing ones that were in place prior to last year's introduction of draft regulations."
The investments were made through a mix of federal infrastructure programs, including the recent multibillion-dollar fund that was introduced in 2009 to stimulate the economy.
Elected municipal officials from across the country have said they agree with the importance of new standards to crack down on sewage treatment, but they have warned that the estimated $20 billion in costs — in the absence of new funding from the federal or provincial governments — could result in annual tax hikes of up to $1,000 per household in some communities.
Environment Canada scientists have said the regulations are necessary to address human and environmental health threats resulting from an estimated 150 billion litres of sewage released every year from the systems into Canadian waterways. They have also said that the proposed regulations would bring Canada up to the same standard as other jurisdictions such as the United States and Europe.
The cities have maintained they must get more help — on top of existing multibillion-dollar investments, such as a gas tax revenue sharing program — to cope with the regulations as well as other crumbling infrastructure estimated to require more than $123 billion in new funding.
"It is reminiscent of the 1990s, when federal, provincial and territorial governments pushed deficits off of their balance sheets and into local streets, fuelling growth in the $123-billion municipal infrastructure deficit," wrote Basil Stewart, mayor of Summerside, P.E.I. and former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in a 2009 letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "Without a national funding plan, the new standards will add at least 10 per cent to that figure with the stroke of a pen."
Environment Minister Peter Kent was told by his department in briefing notes last January that the final standards were slated to be implemented within six months, but his spokeswoman, Melissa Lantsman, has said the government is proceeding carefully on consultations with all of the stakeholders to ensure communities can properly protect both their economic and environmental interests when they comply with the regulations.
A spokesman for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Minister Denis Lebel said the government is still in negotiations with stakeholders on funding issues for cities which fall under provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution.
"Minister Lebel will continue to work with municipalities and provinces on the long-term infrastructure plan," wrote Benoit Fortin, Lebel's press secretary, in an email. "For more details on the estimated cost, please contact Environment Canada."
In its last assessment, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents more than 90 per cent of the country's population, projected that the regulations would result in an overhaul of about 400 wastewater treatment systems across Canada, with major upgrades required for cities such as Halifax, Laval, Que., Montreal, Regina and Vancouver.
------------------------------
GUERNSEY WATER STUDY SEWAGE IMPACT ON SEA
BBC
20 July 2011
The study forms part an investigation into the whether or not Guernsey needs full sewage treatment.
Guernsey Water is carrying out a £200,000 study to discover the precise impact of untreated sewage on the environment.
Experts will look at the effect on marine life before compiling data to help the States decide whether more sewage treatment is needed.
Currently, untreated sewage is pumped out into the Little Russel.
Andrew Redhead, director of Water Services, said he hoped the report would be ready early in 2012.
------------------------------
END.
