CRD-RELATED SEWAGE PROJECT NEWS:
- ARESST TV SPOT & PRESS CONFERENCE 23 JUNE CLOVER POINT PUMP STATION
- MONEY FOR TREATMENT PLANT NOT IN BANK YET (Anderson)
- PERCEPTION TRUMPS SCIENCE IN SEWAGE DEBATE
- VICTORIA'S SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (mentions Dr. Chris Garrett and Dr. Tom Pedersen)
- LINK TO FEDERAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (recently published)
- ESTIMATES ALL OVER THE MAP FOR YOUR SEWAGE COSTS
- UTILITY FEE HIKES BETTER WAY TO PAY FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT, MAYORS AGREE
- VICTORIA COUNCIL OF CANADIANS EXPRESSES CONCERNS OVER CRD BIOSOLIDS PRIVATIZATION
- LETTER: MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ABOUT MOVING AHEAD (SANCHEZ)
- LETTER: REPORT DOESN'T JUSTIFY NEW SEWAGE PLANT (KELLY)
- LETTER: DO VOTERS HAVE A SAY IN SEWAGE PROJECT? (PATTERSON)
- LETTER: SEWAGE PIPELINE POSES DANGERS (CLAYTON)
- LETTER: EVIDENCE SUPPORTS NEED FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT (SETAC &"social consensus" trumps)
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
- CANADA'S NEW WASTEWATER REGULATIONS SPUR CALL FOR FEDERAL FUNDS (treatment deadlines loophole?)
------------------------------
ARESST TV SPOT - PRESS CONFERENCE 23 JUNE, CLOVER POINT PUMP STATION
CHEK TV showed up and ARESST is at 07 minutes 18 seconds of CHEKNEWS @5PM - JULY 19, 2012: http://www.cheknews.ca/index.
At the press conference on Monday, ARESST spokespeople will announce suite of strategies to challenge the CRD, federal and provincial move to force unnecessary land-based sewage treatment plant on Victoria's environment and taxpayers. Clover Point 9am.
------------------------------
Federal cabinet minister James Moore came to Victoria last week to announce the federal contribution to the Capital Regional District’s proposed on-land artificial wastewater treatment plant.
The media gave the announcement extensive coverage, as it should, but behind the hoopla is the nagging question: what did Moore add to the similar promise made by Prime Minister Harper a year ago? And will the money actually come our way?
Moore was more precise than the prime minister. First, there is now an upper dollar limit to the federal taxpayers’ contribution. It now stands at $253 million, with local taxpayers responsible for any cost overruns.
Second, it is clear that this contribution to the capital costs of wastewater treatment will be counted as part of the federal expenditures in British Columbia on infrastructure.
In other words, the amount of the contribution will be counted against any federal money that otherwise would come to this province for rapid transit, new bridges, convention facilities and other major capital works.
This is not additional money.
If British Columbia gets this $253 million, the province will get $253 million less for other infrastructure projects.
But while adding precision, Moore laid down conditions. Specifically he made it clear that the project would have to be approved by the federal Treasury Board, and that it would be subject to federal environmental assessments.
These conditions seem reasonable enough, but their effect may yet be road blocks to a federal financial contribution.
Consider the requirement for Treasury Board approval. The role of Treasury Board is to ensure “efficiency, effectiveness, and ongoing value for money.” Treasury Board approval will require a detailed cost/benefit analysis of the project, a detailed examination of the disadvantages and advantages of the project and an evaluation of alternative ways of achieving the objectives by some other means – including the existing natural system that is in place today.
If Treasury Board does its usual thorough job, the CRD plan is unlikely to pass the test.
No detailed cost/benefit analysis for example, has yet been done. If Treasury Board experts do one, the results are unlikely to favour what the CRD is proposing.
The second off-ramp that could derail the federal financial contribution is the federal environmental assessment. The CRD has declared that the current system is detrimental to our local waters and the proposed system will improve the quality of the local marine environment. But the claim is just that, a claim. It has not been supported by independent studies, the majority of which say exactly the opposite.
Further, it is contradicted by 10 University of Victoria experts in the fields of oceanography, marine biology and engineering, who took the unusual step of signing a letter pointing out that on balance, there are no net environmental benefits from the proposal.
Equally damaging to the CRD case is that six current and former public health officers for the area have publicly pointed out that in their expert judgment, there are, on balance, no net health benefits from the proposal.
In fact, since details of the plan have been put forward, it has become clear that the greenhouse gas impact of the proposal is substantial, and other environmental and even health impacts are more significant than anticipated. Once again, on environmental and health grounds, the current system appears to be substantially superior to what is being proposed, a fact that a serious federal environmental impact assessment will almost certainly demonstrate.
Of course, the federal cabinet could change the rules yet again, and provide the money regardless of environmental impact or of a cost/benefit analysis. But don’t count on it.
At present, the federal contribution to the CRD’s proposed on-land wastewater treatment system appears a long way from being in the bank.
- Former Victoria MP David Anderson served for 10 years in the federal cabinet of Jean Chrétien, when he was a member of Treasury Board and the minister responsible for the Environmental Assessment Agency. He was also the minister responsible for the Infrastructure Program in British Columbia.
http://www.oakbaynews.com/
At the press conference on Monday, ARESST spokespeople will announce suite of strategies to challenge the CRD, federal and provincial move to force unnecessary land-based sewage treatment plant on Victoria's environment and taxpayers. Clover Point 9am.
ARESST MEMBERS - WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN UPCOMING CAMPAIGN!
ARESST Board meeting 19 July
MONEY FOR TREATMENT PLANT NOT IN BANK YET (David Anderson)
David Anderson
Victoria News + Oak Bay News + Saanich News + Goldstream Gazette
July 19, 2012
July 19, 2012
Federal cabinet minister James Moore came to Victoria last week to announce the federal contribution to the Capital Regional District’s proposed on-land artificial wastewater treatment plant.
The media gave the announcement extensive coverage, as it should, but behind the hoopla is the nagging question: what did Moore add to the similar promise made by Prime Minister Harper a year ago? And will the money actually come our way?
Moore was more precise than the prime minister. First, there is now an upper dollar limit to the federal taxpayers’ contribution. It now stands at $253 million, with local taxpayers responsible for any cost overruns.
Second, it is clear that this contribution to the capital costs of wastewater treatment will be counted as part of the federal expenditures in British Columbia on infrastructure.
In other words, the amount of the contribution will be counted against any federal money that otherwise would come to this province for rapid transit, new bridges, convention facilities and other major capital works.
This is not additional money.
If British Columbia gets this $253 million, the province will get $253 million less for other infrastructure projects.
But while adding precision, Moore laid down conditions. Specifically he made it clear that the project would have to be approved by the federal Treasury Board, and that it would be subject to federal environmental assessments.
These conditions seem reasonable enough, but their effect may yet be road blocks to a federal financial contribution.
Consider the requirement for Treasury Board approval. The role of Treasury Board is to ensure “efficiency, effectiveness, and ongoing value for money.” Treasury Board approval will require a detailed cost/benefit analysis of the project, a detailed examination of the disadvantages and advantages of the project and an evaluation of alternative ways of achieving the objectives by some other means – including the existing natural system that is in place today.
If Treasury Board does its usual thorough job, the CRD plan is unlikely to pass the test.
No detailed cost/benefit analysis for example, has yet been done. If Treasury Board experts do one, the results are unlikely to favour what the CRD is proposing.
The second off-ramp that could derail the federal financial contribution is the federal environmental assessment. The CRD has declared that the current system is detrimental to our local waters and the proposed system will improve the quality of the local marine environment. But the claim is just that, a claim. It has not been supported by independent studies, the majority of which say exactly the opposite.
Further, it is contradicted by 10 University of Victoria experts in the fields of oceanography, marine biology and engineering, who took the unusual step of signing a letter pointing out that on balance, there are no net environmental benefits from the proposal.
Equally damaging to the CRD case is that six current and former public health officers for the area have publicly pointed out that in their expert judgment, there are, on balance, no net health benefits from the proposal.
In fact, since details of the plan have been put forward, it has become clear that the greenhouse gas impact of the proposal is substantial, and other environmental and even health impacts are more significant than anticipated. Once again, on environmental and health grounds, the current system appears to be substantially superior to what is being proposed, a fact that a serious federal environmental impact assessment will almost certainly demonstrate.
Of course, the federal cabinet could change the rules yet again, and provide the money regardless of environmental impact or of a cost/benefit analysis. But don’t count on it.
At present, the federal contribution to the CRD’s proposed on-land wastewater treatment system appears a long way from being in the bank.
- Former Victoria MP David Anderson served for 10 years in the federal cabinet of Jean Chrétien, when he was a member of Treasury Board and the minister responsible for the Environmental Assessment Agency. He was also the minister responsible for the Infrastructure Program in British Columbia.
http://www.oakbaynews.com/
------------------------------
PERCEPTION TRUMPS SCIENCE IN SEWAGE DEBATE
CRAIG MCINNES
VANCOUVER SUN
JULY 18, 2012
Letters to editor: sunletters@
In the end, the Victoria sewage debate came down to optics over science and the outcome provided more evidence that common sense is neither common nor necessarily sensible.
With the announcement this week that the federal and provincial governments will each kick in roughly a third of the estimated cost of building a sewage treatment system in Victoria, the perennial argument about whether it is really needed is now moot. It will be built, regardless. Even Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard now seems at peace with the decision to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on a treatment system that will have little measurable effect on water quality.
Two decades ago, as the chair of the Capital Regional District, Leonard challenged some American mayors from the other side of Juan de Fuca Strait to come and swim with him near the outfalls where Victoria's sewage pours untreated into the fast-moving waters. No one took him up on the challenge, which, given the temperature of the water, was probably just as well.
Today, Leonard has given up on settling the scientific debate, arguing it was lost when politics took over and then Conservative leader Stephen Harper promised in the 2005 campaign that a Conservative government would pay a third of the cost of bringing sewage treatment to the last city between Alaska and the Mexican border still dumping its raw sewage into the ocean.
That's when the cost was optimistically estimated to be $440 million.
A year later, the province ordered the Capital region to come up with a plan to end the practice. When that plan was produced, the budget for the sewage treatment project had ballooned to $1.2 billion - before it was whittled back enough to produce the current estimate of $782.7 million.
Six years after the provincial order, raw sewage continues to pour into the Strait, treated only by forcing it through a six-millimetre grate to cut the risk of floaters. While politically offensive, that untreated effluent still isn't detectable more than a couple of hundred metres from the two outfalls as the massive marine conveyor belt sweeps it out to sea. Nevertheless, common sense dictates that if we are dumping raw sewage, we must be polluting and therefore it has to be stopped, regardless of the cost. Or so the argument goes.
Leonard says most people he hears from now accept that the treatment project has to be done. It's more of a value system than an assessment of the scientific evidence. People want to feel like they are doing the right thing.
Assuming the final tab comes in as projected, the annual increased cost per household is estimated to be between $200 and $500, depending on how the individual municipalities in the regional district agree to divide the costs.
All this is based on a project that has yet to be tendered. It's possible that in this slow economy, the project will come in under budget. But the most recent experience in the Capital region is with an iconic blue bridge on Johnson Street in Victoria being replaced, which was approved with a budget of $77 million. Even before construction started, the budget ballooned by 20 per cent, effectively swallowing up the federal contribution.
I haven't heard any predictions that the budget for the sewage treatment project will follow the route of the fast ferries or the Vancouver Convention Centre or even Victoria's blue bridge, but no one can say for certain what the cost will be until the contracts are signed.
"It's our best guess but it's still a guess," a regional district spokesman conceded Tuesday.
Those should be scary words for municipal ratepayers, who are on the hook for any overruns, since the federal and provincial contributions are fixed. Yet while they shoulder the risks, that arrangement also has benefits for local taxpayers, Leonard argues, since it imposes some discipline on municipal politicians who might be tempted to tinker with the design. Without a cap, municipal politicians would be able to add to the project by spending 33-cent dollars. Now their constituents will have to pay the full freight for any changes they make, which should put a damper on anything that adds to the final cost.
------------------------------
LINK TO FEDERAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS
Thanks to Shaun for this:
Here is a link to the Federal Wastewater systems effluent regulations that were posted yesterday 18th July.
Note "loophole" in the regulations as identified by environmentalist group Ecojustice. Because of the volume of effluent, Victoria is
classified as "high risk":
------------------------------
VICTORIA'S SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (mentions Dr. Chris Garrett and Dr. Tom Pedersen)
Elizabeth Hames
Metro Victoria
18 July 2012
Laura Leyshon James Skwarok dressed up as Mr. Floaty in his campaign to pressure the Capital Regional District to build a sewage treatment plant.
A promise of funding for Victoria’s long-awaited sewage treatment plant has done nothing to cool off a debate about the effects associated with dumping waste into the ocean.
The Victoria area has been pumping 130 million litres of raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca for years. But governments recently pledged to change the way the region deals with its waste.
On Monday, officials at the federal, provincial and regional level announced joint funding for construction of a $782-million secondary sewage treatment system.
The Core Area Wasteater Treatment Plant (CAWTP) will consist of the McLoughlin Wastewater Treatment Plant and Marine Outfall, a Biosolids Energy Centre and Conveyance System Upgrades.
The project has been a long time coming for many residents, who have long advocated for secondary sewage treatment.
But not everyone is in support of the new system.
In a letter to the editor Thursday, former environment minister David Anderson suggested governments are pandering to public opinion while ignoring the data.
“[T]his is another example in a series that shows its fundamental lack of respect for science,” he wrote about Monday’s announcement.
He said there is evidence to show that the current system of sewage disposal is superior to on-shore treatment, like that the CRD is proposing.
Anderson is not alone.
Chris Garrett, a marine scientist at the University of Victoria, said it’s clear from the monitoring done by the CRD that sending sewage into the ocean has a minimal impact on the environment.
A secondary sewage treatment plant “might lead to very minor improvements, but no one would really notice,” he said.
Thomas Pedersen, executive director for the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, agreed.
“There is no damage being caused by Victoria sewage,” he said.
He said the fast-moving water off the Strait of Juan de Fuca naturally disposes of the waste while oxygenating the water.
“We’re throwing money at a problem that does not exist,” he said, adding that the nearly $800 million set aside for the new system would be better spent on other environmental projects.
But John Werring, a long-time advocate for sewage treatment in Victoria, disagreed with their assessment of the scientific data.
“I don’t think there’s a scientist worth their salt who would say dumping 130 million litres a day of raw sewage into the ocean is a good thing to do,” said Werring.
He said sewage contains pollutants that can be harmful to marine life.
Although there is no definitive study to support his view, Werring’s belief that the CRD should not be dumping its sewage in the ocean is shared by governing bodies.
Werring, who now works for the Suzuki Foundation, has been decrying the effects of dumping raw sewage in the ocean for nearly two decades.
In 2004, he filed a complaint against the CRD alleging its method of sewage disposal violated the province’s Contaminated Sites Regulations.
That complaint eventually led the B.C.’s then-Environment Minister to demand the CRD construct a secondary sewage treatment plant.
The provincial and federal governments have also pledged their support by putting aside $248 million and $253 million respectively for the new system.
But Garrett and Pedersen remain committed to their opinion.
“If we really thought this was a big issue, marine scientists would be the first to holler about it,” said Garrett.
------------------------------
ESTIMATES ALL OVER THE MAP FOR YOUR SEWAGE COSTS
Guesses from $100 to $800 a year; may depend on how much you flush
Cindy E. Harnett
Times Colonist
July 19, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
A new charge to help pay for Greater Victoria's sewage treatment system will likely come on water bills, but how much it will be is still being debated, with estimates ranging from $100 to $800 a year.
Mayors are saying they would like to see the sewage treatment charge tied to metered water use; the more water used, the higher the sewage bill, giving people the option of reducing costs by using less water.
The money is needed to pay for the Capital Regional District's $281.3 million share of an estimated $782.7 million bill to build a sewage treatment system for Saanich, Victoria, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Langford, View Royal and Colwood. It will also help pay for the estimated $14.5million annual operating cost.
Completion of the project is expected by 2018-2019.
Municipalities are hammering out the money details after the federal and provincial governments confirmed their financial contributions on Monday.
Adding sewage treatment costs to property taxes was considered, but municipalities are leaning toward water bills, deeming that method to be more equitable because it covers people and organizations that don't pay property tax.
"But whether it's on the property tax bill or utility bill, it's still a fee that we will have to pay, and anything that goes up, nobody likes," said Denise Blackwell, chairwoman of the CRD's liquid waste management committee.
"Until you know the extent of the bill, you can only give an estimate."
Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard said his municipality will likely tie sewage treatment costs to winter water usage. That will ensure that residents don't pay increased sewage costs because they are watering their lawns. Using water bills will also ensure that institutions that don't pay property tax - such as the University of Victoria and Camosun College - pay their fair share, he said.
The City of Victoria has estimated that the annual total charge for sewage treatment will be about $360 for a single-family home, based on CRD cost estimates from 2010 and the continuing of a trend where people are using less water.
Among the issues still being debated are whether charges should be phased in and how costs will be divvied among municipalities.
Each municipality is being asked to make an educated guess about what treatment capacity it will need in the next 20 years and to commit to pay for that capacity. They're also being told that there may not be a chance to renegotiate.
Oak Bay is struggling to make an estimate based on its old sewer and water pipes, and how that might change if the pipes are replaced. During a storm, rainwater leaks into the sewer lines. Residents could end up paying to treat rainwater. But if Oak Bay replaces its pipes, it will need less treatment capacity.
On the opposite side of the coin, Langford has new pipes and little leakage.
However, Langford's population is projected to increase to 32,000 in 2015 from 22,000 in 2006, so it will need increased sewage treatment capacity. Do those two communities trade capacity in future years?
"It's a very complex formula and it will take a lot of negotiations to arrive at a final figure," said Oak Bay Mayor Nils Jensen.
Meanwhile, Colwood Mayor Carol Hamilton is considering jumping ship on the whole agreement.
Only 14 per cent of her municipality is on the sewer system. The municipality is considering whether only those with sewer service should pay, or if the cost should be shared with the 86 per cent of residents who are using septic tanks and might never tap into the city's sewer system.
http://www2.canada.com/
------------------------------
UTILITY FEE HIKES BETTER WAY TO PAY FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT, MAYORS AGREE
Daniel Palmer
Victoria News
July 18, 2012
Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin has an answer for city taxpayers wondering how much they’ll have to shell out for sewage treatment.
“The average single family in the City of Victoria will pay about $360 (more) a year,” he said Wednesday.
Victoria, responsible for 23 per cent of the Capital Regional District’s share of the $782-million project, began collecting sewage fees based on water consumption in 2011, in anticipation of the expenditure.
Local governments in Greater Victoria will soon begin cost-sharing negotiations around paying the $281-million portion of the most expensive capital expenditure project in the region’s history. The seven affected municipalities need to agree on a funding model before work can begin.
The secondary sewage treatment program is set to begin development in early 2013 and will end the dumping of screened raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard said paying for regional sewage treatment through property tax increases – one option up for discussion – may be unfair to residents who minimize their wastewater.
“If we go to the property tax model, then the University of Victoria and the two Camosun Colleges wouldn’t pay their share,” Leonard said.
By linking the increased fee to water utilities, properties with septic systems would also be exempted from paying for sewage services they don’t use, Leonard said.
Fortin agreed it would be a more equitable system than linking fees to property tax.
On Monday, the federal and provincial governments announced commitments of $253 million and $248 million, respectively, for the project.
At the same time, any cost overruns will fall to local governments.
The province plans to withhold its portion of the funding until the project is near completion in 2018.
CRD spokesman Andy Orr said the municipalities of Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, View Royal, Colwood and Langford will likely agree on a funding model based on how much wastewater they produce and the age of their sewage infrastructure.
“So newer developments, like Langford and Colwood, may well have cheaper costs,” he said.
The sewage treatment project is comprised of three major elements – a wastewater treatment plant at McLoughlin Point in Esquimalt, piping system upgrades and a biosolids energy centre proposed for the Hartland landfill in Saanich.
The biosolids centre will be built as a private-public partnership (P3), which allows private companies to build and operate a facility, but also bear responsibility for any cost overruns.
Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins, who opposes the installation of the wastewater treatment facility at McLoughlin Point, said the CRD should have made the entire project a P3.
“I really have a concern that we’re stepping beyond our bounds as local government. We shouldn’t be doing what private business can do,” she said.
The CRD already manages a wastewater treatment facility on the Saanich Peninsula for Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney.
Negotiations between municipalities for a funding model are expected to take place over the coming months and will include public input, Leonard said.
The CRD’s next step will be to hire a project manager and pass a bylaw that allows it to create a commission to oversee the project.
------------------------------
VICTORIA COUNCIL OF CANADIANS EXPRESSES CONCERNS OVER CRD BIOSOLIDS PRIVATIZATION
2012 July 19
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bharat Chandramouli. info@
The Greater Victoria area will finally go ahead with the building of secondary sewage treatment, thanks to a $782 Million funding arrangement between the federal government, provincial government and the Capital Regional District (CRD) announced on Tuesday. The Victoria Chapter of the Council of Canadians (CoCVic) is pleased that all levels of governments have kept part of the the project (the sewage treatment) under public ownership, acceding to the wishes of a majority of people in Greater Victoria and the resolutions passed by the CRD in 2010.
However, CoCVic would like to express its strong displeasure at the unnecessary and expensive decision to split the project into two and fund the solid waste-to-energy operation as a Public-Private “Partnership” (P3).
“At a time when public financing costs are very low, P3 make little economic sense”, says Bharat Chandramouli, co-chair of the Victoria Chapter of the Council of Canadians. When we don’t give our elected officials any more than a 3-5 year “contract”, it is unwise public policy to give a private monopoly provider a 25 year contract. A contract of this length gives future CRD boards and area councils little flexibility to react to changes and advances in technology.
While proponents of P3s claim to provide cost savings to governments, or to transfer risks. these claims have not been borne out in reality. Vancouver transit is a recent example. The publicly funded Millennium line was finished in less than a 1/3 the time it took the P3 Canada Line. Paris, France, the pioneer of water infrastructure privatization, brought its water back into public ownership 2 years back with lower rates, better performance and increased satisfaction 1.
The provincial and federal governments’ ideological and dogmatic insistence on introducing public-private partnership unnecessarily complicates the CRD’s municipal waste handling system. Instead of one closed loop where any savings/revenue from operating a waste to energy plant can defray the costs, or increase the efficiency of sewage treatment, we will have two separately managed entities operating under different mandates. This may benefit the private operator of the energy plant, but it is hard to see where the savings/efficiencies in this arrangement are for the taxpayer. A competitive-bid contract to design and build the plant would have been more appropriate.
Public services and infrastructure are best financed and delivered by the public sector. Private industry has a key part to play in its traditional role of designing and constructing public infrastructure under contract. But expanding these deals to include private financing and operations makes them much more complicated, expensive, and risky. Canadians need more public investment to rebuild our economy – but they can’t afford more expensive, unaccountable, and risky public-private partnerships 2.
Footnotes
Paris Water Back in Public Hands – CUPE – http://cupe.ca/
The Problem with Public-Private Partnerships -CCPA http://www.
------------------------------
LETTER: MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ABOUT MOVING AHEAD (SANCHEZ)
Daniel Sanchez
Times Colonist
July 19, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
Re: "Sewage overruns to fall to taxpayers," July 17.
I have been living in Victoria for seven years and I have noticed how the public opinion changes or adapts to its needs.
It is wrong to build an overpass in the most congested crossing in the region, but it is OK to build it on a road to nowhere. It is good to end homelessness, but it is bad to build a rural facility to house the homeless in the Peninsula. It is good to end years of raw-sewage dumping in the ocean, but it is not good now because it costs us taxpayers a few hundred bucks a year.
What is it then, Victoria? Do we want to move forward to the 21st century, or do we want to be stuck in Fort Victoria, 150 years in the past? Make up your mind.
Daniel Sanchez
Victoria
------------------------------
LETTER: REPORT DOESN'T JUSTIFY NEW SEWAGE PLANT (KELLY)
Paul Kelly
Times Colonist
July 19, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
Re: "Sewage overruns to fall to taxpayers," July 17.
It appears that most politicians (unqualified on the subject) who support this expenditure often refer to the Society of Toxicology and Chemistry report of July 2006 as vindication for their position.
Those of us who have read that report in detail are shocked at both the lack of justification and lack of conviction of the authors as to the necessity of stupendously expensive land-based secondary treatment.
Before we take one more step, I would therefore urge the powers that be to recall the authors of SETAC (Dr. William Stubblefield and his team) to Victoria to ask if they think spending almost a billion dollars is justified, based on their report.
Otherwise, the politicians will be just throwing our money down the toilet.
Paul Kelly
Victoria
------------------------------
LETTER: DO VOTERS HAVE A SAY IN SEWAGE PROJECT? (PATTERSON)
Ron Patterson
Times Colonist
July 20, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
Re: "View Royal voters stop new firehall," July 14, and "Sewage overruns to fall to taxpayers," July 17.
If it takes 1,300 signatures to stop an $8-million firehall that is needed, how many signatures are required to stop a $1-billion sewage-treatment system that is not needed?
Ron Patterson
Sidney
---------------
LETTER: SEWAGE PIPELINE POSES DANGERS (CLAYTON)
G.w. Clayton
Times Colonist
July 20, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
Re: "Sewage pipes to cut 21K path through region," July 18.
A key feature of the sewage project is a pipeline connecting the McLoughlin Point treatment facility to a biosolid treatment plant at the Hartland landfill.
The pipeline will carry a toxic sludge, characterized as being "thinner than molasses at two percent solids." No specific route has been chosen. The end products of the process are biogas, phosphorous and dried biosolids that will replace coal.
All good stuff, but what about the prospects of pipeline ruptures and spills, a topic that currently is receiving more than its fair share of media exposure? Crude-oil lines everywhere are being targeted as being too risky to implement. I cannot imagine the public uproar if it were a proposal for a crude-oil line to run through the Capital Regional District. How is the one associated with the Hartland processing plant any different? A break in that line could have enormous consequences.
G.W. Clayton
North Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: EVIDENCE SUPPORTS NEED FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT (SETAC &"social consensus" trumps)
Lee Thiessen
Times Colonist
July 20, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.
Re: "Sewage-treatment plan serves no one well," July 18.
It's truly unfortunate that David Anderson has thought fit to tie the formal announcement of federal funding for Victoria's secondary sewage treatment system to the current federal government's patchy regard for statistics and sciencebased evidence.
A scientific and engineering panel of U.S. and Canadian experts concluded in a thorough 2006 study, available on the Capital Regional District web pages, that "relying on the dilution and natural dispersion processes of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is not a long-term answer to wastewater disposal, especially considering the growth predicted for the CRD and adjacent communities that also contribute contaminant loads to the strait and to Puget Sound."
The well-organized critics of secondary treatment rarely mention the chemicals - many accumulating in ever higher concentrations in the food chain - that we are daily putting into the ecosystem. Neither do they clearly identify the scientific uncertainties regarding the purported benefits of our "natural" treatment of organic wastes.
There is a social consensus on the need for secondary treatment of our daily creation of more than 130 million litres of raw sewage that is supported by scientific evidence. Trying to smear this project with the federal government's lack of meaningful action on climate change and the gutting of the Fisheries Act is itself "playing to the gallery of public opinion," but in a misleading way.
Lee Thiessen
Victoria
------------------------------
CANADA'S NEW WASTEWATER REGULATIONS SPUR CALL FOR FEDERAL FUNDS (treatment deadlines loophole?)
Randall Hackley
Bloomberg
Jul 19, 2012 2:44 AM PT
New government regulations to control wastewater in Canadian waterways sparked a call for federal funding to help pay for municipal upgrades and an environmental group to warn about a sewage dumping loophole.
The regulations announced yesterday aim to control effluent and ensure it’s properly treated before entering Canada’s rivers, lakes and coastlines.
Environment Minister Peter Kent said three-quarters of municipalities already comply with the rules while the remainder must upgrade at costs that the government says could be at least C$5 billion ($4.96 billion).
Municipalities considered high risk under the new law have until 2020 to comply, the government said. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has sought a national funding program for the upgrade costs while the Ecojustice group said the regulations have a loophole that may permit delays in upgrades of medium- and high-risk plants for as much as 28 years.
Canadians “deserve to be protected from harmful substances in our water now, not 28 years from now,” an Ecojustice scientist, Elaine MacDonald, said in an e-mail from Toronto.
------------------------------
END.
