- EVENT: RANDY GARRISON MP HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE 19 DEC, 4-7PM
- YOUTH VITAL SIGNS SURVEY - THEY WANT BUSES (not sewage plants)
- CITY OF VICTORIA: 'HOMES AND BUSINESSES FACE UTILITY FEE RISES'
- STUDY: US NEEDS BILLIONS FOR WATER, SEWERS
- GUERNSEY DOES NOT NEED TO TREAT SEWAGE FULLY
EVENT: RANDY GARRISON MP HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE 19 DEC, 4-7PM
Randall Garrison, MP Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, will have holiday open house at his constituency office, A2-100 Aldersmith Place, View Royal (beside Admirals Walk shopping centre). Light snacks & refreshments served. Info: 250-405-6550. No RSVP required. Accepting donations of non-perishable foods for Food Bank.
There are likely many other MLAs and MPs who have been having these "holiday open houses" but I happened to see Garrison's event prominently advertised in the newspaper. Selection of Randall Garrison comments on our sewage treatment plant issue:
Coun. Randall Garrison said he wants it in writing that trucks will not haul the sludge, ruining the town’s streets and causing traffic hazards. http://aresst.ca/
2010/06/22/esquimalt- councillors-appalled-sewage- plant-plan/
“The federal government should support sewage treatment in Victoria but must ensure that the plant we build is the most modern and environmentally sound possible. It must maximize resource recovery both as a contribution to sustainability and also to generate revenues to help defray operating costs.” http://esquimaltreview.
I have helped promote priority projects like modern sewage treatment with resource recovery...http://members.
VICTORIA'S YOUTH VITAL SIGNS SURVEY - THEY WANT MORE BUSES, NOT SEWAGE PLANTS
ARESST: The 2010 Victoria Foundation Youth Vital Signs report (within the general report) highlighted that respondents were clamoring for a sewage treatment plant. This year's 2011 Youth report suggested that the big environmental concern was recycling and better buses - and sewage treatment doesn't show up anywhere in the report.
ARESST: Excerpt: "We recognize that we have aging infrastructure and part of the cost associated with sewer charges is to replace the aging pipes," Fortin said. "We're trying to deal with an infrastructure gap around sewage." Of course, paying another $500 a year for unnecessary land-based sewage plant won't help that infrastructure deficit at all!
VICTORIA: 'HOMES AND BUSINESSES FACE UTILITY FEE RISES'
Bill Cleverley And Cindy E. Harnett
December 14, 2011
Victoria property owners will pay more for everything from water to garbage pickup next year.
At a special council meeting Tuesday, councillors approved a series of utility increases that will total about $50 a year for the average residential property owner and about $1,000 to the average commercial property owner.
Mayor Dean Fortin said Tuesday night that most of the increases flow through from the Capital Regional District.
Included in the increases is residential garbage collection, which will go up 3.9 per cent to $202.92 per single family dwelling from the current rate of $195.12.
Councillors also approved a 10 per cent increase in the sewer fees, which city staff say is necessary to pay for deferred maintenance on an aging system and to build up reserves. The increase is estimated to be equivalent to an additional $16 a year to the average residential user and about $384 a year to the typical commercial user.
"We recognize that we have aging infrastructure and part of the cost associated with sewer charges is to replace the aging pipes," Fortin said. "We're trying to deal with an infrastructure gap around sewage."
Councillors agreed to increase the water consumption fee by nine per cent. The increase will mean about $26 a year for the average homeowner and about $624 annually for the typical commercial user.
Part of the reason for the increase is an estimated increase in the wholesale water rate from the Capital Regional District of three per cent.
City engineering staff say the increase will allow them to attack the water infrastructure deficit. The need for additional revenue is exacerbated because people are using less water.
"We're using less water, which is a great conservation ethic, but the cost of water, the entire system from the dam to pipes, is the same," Fortin said.
"To pay for the operating costs when less people are using water, you have to charge more for the water you're using."
A staff report noted that, over the past decade, total volume of water consumed in Victoria has decreased by about 20 per cent.
victoriatimescolonist/news/ capital_van_isl/story.html?id= 1510e9f0-bbdb-4d33-894e- abd74cee88f4
ARESST: City of Victoria 2010 report identified $467 millions total infrastructure deficit and for sewers alone, the $30 million being spent over next 15 years will demand hefty utility tax increases. Thus Victorians will still be paying to fix the old pipes just as even bigger tax increases arrive to pay for the unnecessary sewage treatment plant!
STUDY: US NEEDS BILLIONS FOR WATER, SEWERS
13 Dec 2011
The United States needs to pour billions of dollars into repairing its pipes and wastewater systems in the coming decades, or it could face drinking water shortages and onerously high sewer rates, the American Society of Civil Engineers said on Tuesday.
In a report it will release later this week, the group found that the gap between needs and anticipated funding for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure will swell to $84 billion by 2020.
"As the U.S. population has increased, the percentage served by public water systems has also increased. Each year new water lines are constructed to connect more distant dwellers to centralized systems, continuing to add users to aging systems," Gregory DiLoreto, its president-elect, told the Senate subcommittee on water of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Although new pipes are being added to expand service areas, drinking water systems degrade over time; they must be replaced at the end of their useful life, which ranges from 15 to 95 years," he said.
The demand is growing as the U.S. population increases, the Environmental Protection Agency's director of wastewater management, James Hanlon, told the subcommittee.
"Communities across the country identified the need for $300 billion in wastewater and $335 billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements for capital expenditures over the next 20 years," he said.
On a scale of A through F, where "F" stood for failure, the society gave the U.S. wastewater and drinking water infrastructure a "D-" in 2009.
"Each day, the condition of our water infrastructure results in significant losses and damages from broken water and sewer mains, sewage overflows, and other symptoms of water infrastructure that is reaching the end of its useful life cycle," said Sen. James Inhofe, the most powerful Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Most of the country obtains water from public systems operated by local authorities, which borrow from the federal government, charge users fees and issue bonds to fund repairs and new construction.
The federal Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds have financed more than $111 billion of infrastructure projects since 1987, Hanlon said. The federal stimulus plan in 2009 put nearly $6 billion into 3,214 projects through the revolving funds.
The funds, which make loans and then use the debt repayments to make new loans, are "the basic mechanism for assistance to communities in addressing water quality issues," Joe Freeman, financial assistance division chief for the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, told the subcommittee.
"Currently, funding levels are decreasing while the restrictions and set-asides for those funds are increasing, thus making the program even less sustainable and growing the gap of un-met needs," he said, adding that the EPA's current oversight "stifles innovation and the abilities of states to best respond to local needs."
Nowhere is the struggle to cover the costs of sewer improvements more apparent than in Jefferson County, Alabama. It embarked on a complicated financing scheme to retrofit its sewers that ultimately led the county to file for bankruptcy and pushed taxpayers' monthly sewer bills close to $100.
By 2050, the U.S. Census expects the country's population to have increased by 35 percent, Hanlon told the subcommittee.
"Many of the environmental successes of the past three decades may be overwhelmed by future demands," he said. "These water and wastewater infrastructure challenges will be faced by systems across the country, both in our large and growing urban centers as well as our rural towns."
GUERNSEY DOES NOT NEED TO TREAT SEWAGE FULLY
The current method of pumping sewage out to sea was not found to impact on the marine environment
16 December 2011
Guernsey does not need to build a full sewage treatment plant, according to a report into the impact of pumping the waste out to sea.
UK firm Metoc investigated the potential cost and benefits of additional sewage treatment.
It found a treatment plant, estimated at a cost of £100m over 25 years, would provide no environmental benefit.
Public Services Minister Bernard Flouquet said the report showed nature provided effective sewage treatment.
He said the current system met most European and international standards.
At the moment waste water, including sewage, is screened before being discharged from the Belle Greve pumping station into the Little Russel, about one mile offshore via the main long sea outfall.
The States approved an £11m upgrade to the existing station on Thursday to improve the screening process.
'May be unpalatable'
The £200,000 report found the only requirement the island does not currently meet could be achieved by installing a new long sea outfall, at a cost of £6-8m, which is set to be approved in January.
It also concluded the current method had no adverse impact on bathing water quality at beaches outside Belle Greve, or on local shell fisheries.
The report recommended continued monitoring of the impact and changing international requirements.
Deputy Flouquet said the studies were commissioned to identify the best method for adopting full sewage treatment.
He said: "The current method of dealing with sewage may be unpalatable to a lot of us, but if it currently meets international standards you have to question what rationale there is for spending such large amounts of money to implement further treatment.
"However, this is an issue which we know many people have strong views about, so we need to have an informed debate. The scientific work that has been carried out will assist with that."
The estimated cost of £100m for a full sewage treatment plant was based on a similar UK scheme.
It included construction costs of £45-55m and annual costs of £2m, but did not include a budget to buy the land needed for the building or any interest payments needed for any loans.