- CANDIDATES: FOR VICTORIA COUNCIL LINDA MCGREW WANTS SEWAGE PLANT
- THE HIGH COST OF IGNORING SCIENTIFIC FACTS (Gwyn Morgan & sewage plant focus)
- POSSIBILITIES IN DND'S LANDS (Macaulay Pt sewage plant considered)
- PICK UP THE PACE ON STRAIT STUDY (no sewage effluent mention)
- WEBINAR: REINVENTING RAINWATER MANAGEMENT, 26 OCT, NOON
ARESST AGM 3 NOV...AGM 3 NOV...AGM 3 NOV...AGM 3 NOV
------------------------------
CANDIDATES: FOR VICTORIA COUNCIL LINDA MCGREW WANTS SEWAGE PLANT
Times Colonist
OCTOBER 23, 2011
Linda McGrew (has MBA, speaks 3 languages, is paid director of Cetacean Watch Society)
is vexed that:
- The fact that we still pump our sewage into the ocean.
AND (!!)
- The increases in taxes and how there is no end in sight with all our new bills for infrastructure upgrades and changes.
Priorities:
1. The environment. Victoria should be a leader in our country and the world with respect to how we treat our environment. Instead, as far as sewage, garbage, transportation solutions, lack of parks and lack of compost, we are behind most developing countries that I have been to.
2. Amalgamation (of services such as garbage, compost and policing, not necessarily of entire municipalities)
3. Financial debt (467 million right now) and infrastructure issues (an additional 100 million is expected to be required in the next 2 years for Crystal pool, firehall #1, sewers and storm drains...and the list goes on.)
Linda's entry on GSA pro-sewage-plant website,
AGREES with GSA statement:
Comments:
It blows my mind and hurts my stomach that raw sewage is STILL being pumped into our oceans; moreover, that people are turning a blind eye because of costs. Why? So they can enjoy their Crystal pool, local library, and low taxes? Victorian's need to stand up and protet our air, land and water! How dare we wait, just because we aren't currently being directly affected. We need a council that will care for our environment, and one that will work with other governments to solve our issues. Effluent into the ocean isn't just Victoria's problem, it's the whole world's.------------------------------
ARESST: Excerpt from Morgan commentary below:
Sometimes costly decisions are made in response to public perceptions, even when thorough scientific analysis shows an expenditure would not benefit, or might even harm, the environment. A current example is the proposed $782-million sewage treatment plan for Victoria. The city’s sewage currently undergoes primary screening before being pumped offshore into Juan de Fuca Strait. Huge tidal flows through the strait drive strong currents that break up and oxidize the sewage quickly and thoroughly. Measurements show that within only 100 metres of the Victoria outflow point, effluent quality as good as that disposed by much larger cities into rivers of comparatively tiny flow volumes.
An expert panel appointed by the Victoria Capital Regional District found no scientific evidence of significant contamination; and more than 10 marine scientists and six current and former medical health officers have stated that deep-ocean disposal has minimal impact on the marine environment and no measureable public-health risk. Yet the federal and provincial governments insist that a land-based treatment system must be built. Why? Prophetically, the expert panel’s report signalled that its conclusions might be ignored because of public sentiment based on “ethics, aesthetics or other factors that cannot be resolved on purely scientific grounds.”
But the pending victory of public perception over scientific fact doesn’t end there. Although ocean disposal was thoroughly assessed, the
environmental impacts of land-based treatment were not. These include using good farm and/or recreational land for sewage treatment plants; odour emissions to nearby residential areas; substantial energy consumption; atmospheric emissions; and surface contamination from treating, transporting and disposing thousands of tonnes of sewage sludge annually.
Ever since the invention of the wheel, scientific discoveries have underpinned human advancement. Yet most people have little understanding of the technologies they use every day, and harbour notions about them that have no scientific basis.
One myth gaining traction, for example, is that electromagnetic communication devices cause disease. I was reminded of this when delegates at last month’s convention of B.C. municipalities vigorously debated a resolution demanding a moratorium on BC Hydro’s wireless “smart meter” reading program. Seems none of the delegates knew they were using exactly the same WiFi technology when they turned on their laptops.
Politicians and regulators frequently come under pressure from ill-informed groups opposing a commercial venture, even when it’s clear it will have no discernible impact – environmental or otherwise. Consider the many proposals to bottle and sell water from four of B.C.’s remote coastal mountain streams. Although the amount of water involved is infinitesimal compared with flow volumes, and although the fresh-water streams go on to mingle with the salty Pacific, five environmental groups have demanded a full environmental assessment of “cumulative impacts.”
Politicians are prone to kneejerk decisions based on incomplete scientific analysis. A classic example is the ban on incandescent light bulbs. Calculations about energy savings from switching to compact fluorescent and halogen bulbs considered only the reduction in electricity use. That might be a acceptable in the southern U.S. and other warm regions, but it leads to erroneous conclusions in the Canadian climate. Heat given off by incandescent lighting offsets energy needed for space heating during our colder months. Our northern latitude gives us long days of sunlight in summer, further lessening the energy savings from fluorescent lighting.
Nor did the analysis used to justify banning incandescent lights examine the health and environmental impacts of mercury used in the manufacture of compact fluorescent bulbs. The federal government recently announced a two-year deferral of the phase out of incandescents, to the end of 2014, “to consider the concerns about … perceived health and mercury issues including safe disposal of compact fluorescent lamps.” Meanwhile,
manufacturers have already moved to stop incandescent production. Hence, another kneejerk “green” policy fiasco based on incomplete scientific analysis.
Sometimes costly decisions are made in response to public perceptions, even when thorough scientific analysis shows an expenditure would not benefit, or might even harm, the environment. A current example is the proposed $782-million sewage treatment plan for Victoria. The city’s sewage currently undergoes primary screening before being pumped offshore into Juan de Fuca Strait. Huge tidal flows through the strait drive strong currents that break up and oxidize the sewage quickly and thoroughly. Measurements show that within only 100 metres of the Victoria outflow point, effluent quality as good as that disposed by much larger cities into rivers of comparatively tiny flow volumes.
An expert panel appointed by the Victoria Capital Regional District found no scientific evidence of significant contamination; and more than 10 marine scientists and six current and former medical health officers have stated that deep-ocean disposal has minimal impact on the marine environment and no measureable public-health risk. Yet the federal and provincial governments insist that a land-based treatment system must be built. Why? Prophetically, the expert panel’s report signalled that its conclusions might be ignored because of public sentiment based on “ethics, aesthetics or other factors that cannot be resolved on purely scientific grounds.”
But the pending victory of public perception over scientific fact doesn’t end there. Although ocean disposal was thoroughly assessed, the
environmental impacts of land-based treatment were not. These include using good farm and/or recreational land for sewage treatment plants; odour emissions to nearby residential areas; substantial energy consumption; atmospheric emissions; and surface contamination from treating, transporting and disposing thousands of tonnes of sewage sludge annually.
Public-policy decisions that ignore scientific facts in favour of pressure from vocal minorities can kill job-creating commercial ventures, or cause unnecessary public expenditures. In both cases, society loses.
COMMENTS (currently 173):
http://www.theglobeandmail.
------------------------------
ARESST: Excerpt from article below:
In 2009, for example, the Capital Regional District enquired about using vacant DND land at Macaulay Point for a sewage treatment plant. DND said no.
"We do not foresee Macaulay Point as being able to be declared surplus," said a spokesman. "We don't know exactly what we'll be using it for, but we'll be using it."
Or, to put it another way: We're not using it, we don't have any plans for it, but we're not prepared to allow other uses.
The land could provide space for a sewage treatment plant.
POSSIBILITIES IN DND'S LANDS (Macaulay Point sewage plant considered)
Commentary
Times Colonist
October 25, 2011
Some of the the most desirable real estate in Greater Victoria might be on the market one of these days - assuming that the Canadian Forces follows through with some belt-tightening that has been proposed.
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk and Deputy Defence Minister Robert Fonberg have developed a plan calling for the size of the regular Canadian Forces to be frozen at 68,000 people for the next several years to help the military cope with tight budgets that are expected for the next five years.
As part of the plan, the military and the Department of National Defence would close facilities and sell property - and that is where there is potential for major changes in the capital region.
DND controls about 41 square kilometres. Put it all together, and it would be twice the size of the City of Victoria.
Much of the land is needed for CFB Esquimalt operations, military housing and training, and as reserves for what the future might bring. But it would be a stretch to claim that the Department of National Defence and the federal government will need all that land.
CFB Esquimalt, the headquarters for Maritime Forces Pacific, will remain a vital part of Canada's armed forces for decades, we're sure, serving in a military role and supporting humanitarian missions around the globe. And it is a major contributor to the region's economy, with about 4,200 military personnel and 2,000 civilians working at the base.
The military is holding more land than it can use - most of it set aside more than a century ago. Its land holdings are immense; giving up just one-quarter of the land would leave DND with 30 square kilometres. An area the size of Oak Bay would be made available for new uses.
The planning document put together by Natynczyk and Fonberg calls for DND to keep only the sites that support operations. It will, where possible, get rid of property with limited operational value.
The massive land holdings can be found throughout Canada. With 21,000 buildings, DND has half of all federally owned buildings, and has 800 parcels of land covering more than 22,000 square kilometres.
Will this report result in action? That is hard to say, because the military has been quite reluctant to part with land from its portfolio, no matter where it is or how it could be used.
In 2009, for example, the Capital Regional District enquired about using vacant DND land at Macaulay Point for a sewage treatment plant. DND said no.
"We do not foresee Macaulay Point as being able to be declared surplus," said a spokesman. "We don't know exactly what we'll be using it for, but we'll be using it."
Or, to put it another way: We're not using it, we don't have any plans for it, but we're not prepared to allow other uses.
This time, however, DND might have no choice but to get rid of some of its land.
Liberal Sen. Colin Kenny, the former chairman of the senate's defence committee, says selling surplus property is essential, and points to the high maintenance costs that drain federal coffers. He says that up to a quarter of DND's facilities could be sold or closed.
We might not learn about possible dispersals until the spring, when the government releases its budget.
But the idea of reducing DND holdings in Greater Victoria should be enough to start conversations about possible uses for the land. There are many possibilities, made all the more attractive by the prime waterfront locations at many of the sites.
The land could provide space for a sewage treatment plant. It could be turned into parkland, or used for lowcost housing - or premium housing, for that matter. The land could also be used to settle First Nations claims.
The opportunities are endless - kind of like the land holdings themselves. Too much of this DND land has been behind gates for too long. It's time to put it to use.
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=c42e59c8-5cef-4e78-aa68-88d93c7c2aa4
---------------------------------------------------
PICK UP THE PACE ON STRAIT STUDY (no sewage effluent mention)
Commentary
Times Colonist
October 23, 2011
It's good news that the federal and provincial governments are inching toward creating a marine conservation area on the southern Strait of Georgia.
It would be better news if they picked up the pace on what has been a painfully slow process, and put real measures in place to protect the area.
The two governments announced continued progress this month.
But the bureaucratic headline on the news release gives a sense of the tiny steps being taken: "Canada and British Columbia announce proposed boundary for consultation for the southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve."
It's taken 16 years just to get to this point. In 1995, the federal and provincial governments agreed a study should be done to assess the need for a national marine conservation area in the southern strait.
But eight years went by before the governments came up with the required funding to do the study.
It took another eight years to get to this month's announcement that consultations would start on boundaries.
That doesn't mean the conservation area will go ahead. Now the governments will conduct "in-depth consultations with First Nations regarding their interests related to the project" and the proposed boundaries. Then the governments will decide if a national marine conservation area reserve is "practical and desirable."
And even if that eventually results in the area being designated a marine conservation area, there is no guarantee of the kind of environmental protection most of us associate with land-based parks or wilderness preserves. The only activities actually prohibited in marine conservation areas are mining, oil and gas exploration and "exploitation." About one per cent of B.C.'s coastal waters are currently protected, and commercial fishing and other activities have continued in most of the designated areas.
Still, creation of the conservation area would be an important step. The governments propose ultimately designating an area of 1,400 square kilometres - about 60 per cent of the size of the Capital Regional District.
It would stretch from Cordova Bay to Gabriola Passage and southern Gabriola Island to the north, and include Saanich Inlet. The area, thanks to the mix of fresh water from the Fraser River and the ocean tides, is one of the most richest and diverse temperate ocean environments in the world.
Once the boundaries are confirmed, Parks Canada would prepare an interim management plan with input from First Nations, stakeholders and the public.
That's the opportunity to consider measures to protect the environmental diversity and richness of the waters while respecting the interests of other users, like recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters and people with marinas and other shore-based activities.
There are a number of pressing issues. Southern resident orcas are considered endangered, and their numbers continue to decline. Lingcod and rockfish are at low levels and critical habitat - eel grass and kelp beds - have limited protection.
Designation would allow consideration of extra measures to protect and restore diversity. Some areas could be closed to all fishing, for example, becoming nurseries for species under pressure. The impact of development on eelgrass beds could get special attention.
Canada has committed, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, to protect 10 per cent of its ocean waters by 2012. So far, progress has been slow, with only four of 29 areas identified for protection actually designated as conservation areas.
Canadians have long accepted the need for protected areas on land. It's time to take the same sensible approach to our oceans and lakes.
------------------------------
WEBINAR: REINVENTING RAINWATER MANAGEMENT, 26 OCT, NOON
POLIS Webinar-- Reinventing Rainwater Management in Canada's Communities.
Oct 26, 12 to 1:30pm.
WHERE? on the web.
Register by emailing Laura Brandes at communications@
Webinar Summary:
The majority of Canada's communities manage stormwater runoff in a way that is not sustainable in the long term. Flooded streets and basements,
degraded urban streams, increasing impacts of a changing climate, and expensive drainage infrastructure that demands constant maintenance are
all evidence that we must learn to better integrate the water cycle into urban areas.
Webinar Summary:
The majority of Canada's communities manage stormwater runoff in a way that is not sustainable in the long term. Flooded streets and basements,
degraded urban streams, increasing impacts of a changing climate, and expensive drainage infrastructure that demands constant maintenance are
all evidence that we must learn to better integrate the water cycle into urban areas.
Rethinking the way we deal with rain and snowmelt in our cities means replacing conventional “pipe-and-convey” systems with an
approach that recognizes rainwater as a valuable resource while, at the same time, reducing runoff volume and improving runoff quality. One of the
greatest challenges to reinventing rainwater management is the fragmented responsibility for fresh water across and within jurisdictions.
approach that recognizes rainwater as a valuable resource while, at the same time, reducing runoff volume and improving runoff quality. One of the
greatest challenges to reinventing rainwater management is the fragmented responsibility for fresh water across and within jurisdictions.
Peeling back the pavement in Canada’s urban communities will mean addressingissues of governance and decision making. Providing both ecological and political perspectives, the guest speakers will discuss the need for a new paradigm of rainwater management in Canada’s urban environments and
outline positive policies and initiatives already underway in communities across the country and beyond.
Speakers
outline positive policies and initiatives already underway in communities across the country and beyond.
Speakers
Susanne Porter-Bopp, Community Water Coordinator, POLIS Water Sustainability Project, and Lead Author of Peeling Back the Pavement: A Blueprint for Reinventing Rainwater Management in Canada’s Communities.
Patrick Lucey, Senior Aquatic Ecologist and President, Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd. **SPACE IS LIMITED**
------------------------------
END.
