July 21, 2012


CRD-RELATED SEWAGE PROJECT NEWS: 

- CORRECTION TO TIME OF NEWS CONFERENCE - ITS AT 10AM, MONDAY, CLOVER PT PUMP STATION
- ARESST PRESS RELEASE POINTING TO NEWS CONFERENCE 10AM MONDAY
- LETTER: DISCHARGING SEWAGE TO SEA STILL THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT'S BEST OPTION (DEW-JONES)
- LETTER: AFFLUENT EFFLUENT TOO RICH FOR COLWOOD MAJORITY (MCBRIDE)
- LETTER: LAND-BASED SEWAGE TREATMENT WILL CREATE MORE GREENHOUSE GASES (Newcomb)
- LETTER: CHARGING MORE FOR WATER WOULD REDUCE SEWAGE (BROWN)
- LETTER: PROPERTY TAXES SHOULD PAY SEWAGE-PLANT COSTS (ALEKNEVICUS)

---------------------------------------------

CORRECTION TO TIME OF NEWS CONFERENCE - ITS AT 10AM, MONDAY, CLOVER PT PUMP STATION

Sorry for incorrect notice. Our ARESST news conference will be at 10am Monday at Clover Point pump station. 

----------------------------------------------

ARESST PRESS RELEASE POINTING TO NEWS CONFERENCE 10AM MONDAY

Below is ARESST press release
that notified local media outlets about our Monday, 10am news conference: 

Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment (ARESST)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           July 20, 2012

Contact: Dr. Shaun Peck: 250- Mobile: e-mail: shpeck@shaw.ca

Elizabeth Woodworth 250-383-2417 Mobile: 250-889-4559 e-mail: elizwood@shaw.ca

Re: PRESS CONFERENCE, CLOVER POINT, MONDAY JULY 23, 10:00 AM

In the wake of this week's announcement from the federal and provincial governments that the long-proposed sewage treatment plant funding is now in place, ARESST will do everything in its power to mobilize local taxpayers to push the CRD to resist pressure from upper levels of government to build an unnecessary, billion dollar land-based system.

Contrary to the politically instilled beliefs of local residents, land-based sewage is not a done deal, for three reasons:

1. The fine print behind the federal funding announcement shows substantial hurdles:

"the federal funding for the McLoughlin wastewater treatment plant and marine outfall, and conveyance system upgrades, is conditional on treasury board approval and the signing of the contribution agreements. The project must also meet all the terms and conditions of federal infrastructure programs, as well as respect legal obligations, including those related to aboriginal consultation and environmental assessment, the federal government said." (Times-Colonist, Harnett, July 16, 2012)

The provincial funding will not kick in until the project is completed. This means that if the CRD rushes to put "shovels in the ground," its taxpayers could be stuck with the whole bill -- not just a third of it.

2. Federal regulations stipulate that the Province can apply for an exemption based on Victoria's unique receiving environment, and CRD taxpayers, facing added taxes of $500-1000 dollars a year (based on 33% of the capital cost), should push hard for this.

3. Though the CRD has put $24 million into planning this boondoggle, confusion abounds. Still undecided are plant locations, pipe routes and treatment methods.

Environmentally, not only will the planned treatment create an enormous CO2 footprint for the region, but the alleged benefits of additional treatment simply do not exist -- according to hands-on marine scientists, local public health authorities, and wastewater engineers.

To the contrary, the current system treats our sewage very well, using a fortuitous set of conditions that exist in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. High levels of oxygen, micro-organisms, and energy in the form of tides and mixing provided naturally by this unique receiving environment perfectly replicate a land-based sewage system.

The success of the existing system is attested to by decades of regular monitoring and reporting by UVic and CRD scientists.

The Press Conference on Monday will outline ARESST's forthcoming campaign to mobilize public action, informed by science, to pressure the CRD to do the right thing.

---------------------------------------------

LETTER: DISCHARGING SEWAGE TO SEA STILL THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT'S BEST OPTION (DEW-JONES)

Victoria News (+Saanich News+Oak Bay News+Goldstream Gazette)
July 19, 2012

Re: Government funds in, sewage project moving ahead (News, July 18)

So the funds have been found to perpetrate the crime.

Building a land-based sewage treatment plant is nothing less, for it uses a law intended to protect the environment to almost certainly do it harm.

There is no point in the scientists and medical health officers devoting their lives to science and medicine; more note is taken of economists.

Fifty years of research on three continents is being ignored, but it is the trashing of lives that is most sickening.

The cost-benefit is being ignored.

How many lives could be saved in medicine, or how much benefit could be accrued in education with the use of upwards of a billion dollars?

I finish with one of many quotes from my book, Victoria’s Sewage Circus. UK Royal Commission on environmental pollution, 1984: “With well-designed sewage outfalls, we believe that discharge to the sea is not only acceptable, but in cases environmentally preferable.”

Nowhere are conditions better than here.

Ted Dew-Jones
Victoria


--------------------------------------------

LETTER: AFFLUENT EFFLUENT TOO RICH FOR COLWOOD MAJORITY (MCBRIDE)
 
Victoria News  (+Saanich News+Oak Bay News+Goldstream Gazette)
July 19, 2012 

It about time Colwood city council takes a courageous stand and protects residents from this sewage treatment funding idiocy initiated by the Friends of Mr. Floatie.

Currently, the majority of Colwood ratepayers are wholly responsible for our own sewage treatment.

We own, operate and maintain highly efficient septic systems, and we’ll do so well into the foreseeable future.

Why anyone in their right mind would hold the opinion that septic system owners should face a potentially massive tax increase to support a system that we will never be connected to is staggering.

Coun. Judith Cullington says, “(We’ll) look at opportunities for smaller, localized treatment plants and kind of address new development as it comes on board.

That’s certainly not a done decision, but that’s certainly what we heard from people.”

My question to Cullington, why isn’t this a done decision?

Let the sewage system users and future developers pay for any projected increase in capacity.

It’s their issue. Their affluent effluent is far too rich for the rest of us.

Mike McBride
Colwood


------------------------------------------

LETTER: LAND-BASED SEWAGE TREATMENT WILL CREATE MORE GREENHOUSE GASES (Newcomb)

Victoria News  (+Saanich News+Oak Bay News+Goldstream Gazette)
July 19, 2012 

Re: Victoria braces for the big flush (Our View, July 18)

Your view totally misses the most important issue that an additional, land-based sewage treatment plant is just not needed in Victoria.

Several scientists are rightfully skeptical that this sewage treatment plant will provide any measurable improvement in the health of Juan de Fuca Strait.

Such a land-based plant, besides costing so much to build and operate, is only attempting resource recovery because a land-based sewage treatment produces thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases and sewage sludge – which is not produced by our current marine-based system.

Spending even more taxpayer funds to try to reduce the impact of the greenhouse gases and sludge is just not a sustainable approach, when our marine environment can perform its current ecological service as marine treatment of sewage very adequately.

John Newcomb
Saanich


-------------------------------------------

LETTER: CHARGING MORE FOR WATER WOULD REDUCE SEWAGE (BROWN)
 
James Brown
Times Colonist
July 21, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.com

Re: "Sewage overruns to fall to taxpayers," July 17.

There is little doubt among people in this field that most cities' sewage treatment needs to have, at least, secondary treatment but Victoria is the exception.

Our geographic location makes this so. It will be argued that when the population increases, we will need secondary treatment, but this is a knee-jerk reaction. I suggest it will be much cheaper and more certain of being useful if we took other measures, such as reducing the amount of effluent. 

In fact, if we charged for measured water usage as apposed to a flat rate, we would get two cost benefits, less water needed and less effluent to handle.

The current estimate of $782.7 million leaves any overrun in the hands of the taxpayers. Experience strongly indicates that this will be an underestimate. If the end cost is less than $1 billion, I would consider us fortunate. Now the cost per taxpayer seems to be estimated between $100 and $800 a year. If the total cost is $1 billion, these numbers will likely double.

Please bring back and listen to technical experience and knowledge before wasting our money on what appears to be a political decision.

James Brown
Saanich


------------------------------------------

LETTER: PROPERTY TAXES SHOULD PAY SEWAGE-PLANT COSTS (ALEKNEVICUS)
 
Greg Aleknevicus
Times Colonist
July 21, 2012
Letters to editor: letters@timescolonist.com

Re: "Estimates all over map for your sewage costs," July 19.

Regarding the region's mayors opting to pay for sewage treatment via water rates rather than property taxes:

There are two costs associated with Greater Victoria's sewage treatment system: construction costs and operating expenses. It's absolutely fair that the operating expenses be paid for via increased water rates - the more you use, the more you pay.

However, it's unfair and inappropriate that the construction costs be paid for in the same manner. Construction is an infrastructure expense, which is traditionally paid for by property taxes. Since landowners gain the benefit of these improvements, it's fair that they pay the associated costs. But paying for construction via increased water rates transfers the burden from landlords to tenants - a shifting of costs to the poorer members of our society.

I urge the region's mayors and councillors to reconsider placing an unfair burden on those less able to afford it.

Greg Aleknevicus
Victoria


------------------------------------------
END.

Posted by