CRD-RELATED SEWAGE NEWS:
- MOVE CAREFULLY ON SEWAGE PLANT
- CRD DIRECTOR KEPT IN CHECK ON SEWAGE (ANDERSON AND ARESST MENTION)
- ESQUIMALT COUNCIL MINUTES: SEWAGE SITES NOTE SENT TO VICTORIA
- LETTER: SCIENCE SHOULD EXAMINE PIPELINE'S TECHNICAL RISKS (BROWN, J)
- LETTER: EXTENDED SEWAGE SYSTEM WILL COST US FAR LESS (SHERWIN)
- LETTER: SAY NO TO A P3 SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECT (STUART)
- LETTER: LOOK TO THE ANIMALS FOR SEWAGE SOLUTION (WILSON)
- LETTER: CYCLE SYSTEM BETTER THAN NEW SEWAGE PLANT (MURPHY)
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
- LETTER: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE HURRIED (DREHER)
------------------------------
CRD-RELATED SEWAGE NEWS:
ARESST Moving Ahead! Get on board!
With recent developments, ARREST Board now planning for more activities and we think that many ARESST members will coming forward to join us in
new actions - some with time, some with donations (some with both!) to help ARESST defend our community against this environmentally and
Please respond generously when ARESST calls for your support!
ARESST Board meeting yesterday - new actions emerging!
We're just created an ARESST Facebook page, so if you're on Facebook, join our ARESST Facebook page!
----------------------------------
ARESST: Excerpt from story below:
The debate over whether to treat sewage is effectively over. A pivotal 2006 scientific report - flawed as it was - found seabed contamination at the waste outfalls and identified health risks from sewage plumes that rise to the surface. Claims that the waste is an environmental threat could not be refuted, the scientific panel found. And both federal and provincial governments have ordered treatment.
MOVE CAREFULLY ON SEWAGE PLANT
Commentary
Times Colonist
August 15, 2012
Even supporters of sewage treatment should be troubled by the latest developments on the megaproject.
Capital rightly, at the provincial government's attempt to sharply Regional District directors have balked, limit municipal politicians' ability to ensure their communities' interests are protected as the project goes ahead. The directors have asked for legitimate changes to balance decision-making power and protect citizens' interests.
The CRD, after all, will cover not only one-third of the costs, budgeted at $783 million, but 100 per cent of overruns. Local taxpayers will pay the treatment system's operating costs.
And communities will live with the waste-treatment plant at the entrance to Victoria's harbour, sewage facilities in Haro Woods in Saanich and many kilometres of pipelines.
Community Minister Ida Chong says project management must be turned over to a seven-person commission of unelected experts. A CRD report found the approach will "effectively delegate all responsibility to the commission."
There are sound arguments for ensuring the project is managed by people with the required skills and experience. And regional politicians would still have a say on budget and the "esthetic guidelines for above-ground structures."
But given the significance of the megaproject, CRD directors - representing the public interest - should be on the commission. No homeowner would do a renovation and simply cede all decisions to the contractor; no corporation would launch a capital project and accept a contract that precluded its involvement during construction.
The provincial government argues, rightly, that handing the process over to independent managers is efficient. But that efficiency can be at the expense of other publicinterest considerations. The managers running the Canada Line expansion in Vancouver, for example, chose construction methods that were less expensive, but devastating for businesses along the route. That decision deserved, at least, political consideration to balance the needs of all taxpayers.
The management approach to the project is not the only issue. The project is to be fast-tracked, and while unreasonable delays are not in the public interest, neither is excessive haste.
Rezoning for the underground tanks in Saanich East, for example, is forecast to take about seven months. But the University of Victoria's plans for a parkade have already been working through the rezoning process for almost a year, reflecting the need to consult and balance community interests.
Again, needless delays result in higher costs. But in the case of the McLoughlin Point treatment plant, for example, the structure will define the approach to Victoria's harbour for the rest of this century. It's worth the time to get it right.
The debate over whether to treat sewage is effectively over. A pivotal 2006 scientific report - flawed as it was - found seabed contamination at the waste outfalls and identified health risks from sewage plumes that rise to the surface. Claims that the waste is an environmental threat could not be refuted, the scientific panel found. And both federal and provincial governments have ordered treatment.
But this is the largest infrastructure project in the region's history. It will affect everything from tourism to property values to taxes for a generation, at least.
Citizens, through elected representatives, must have a key role as the project moves forward, and there must be political accountability for decisions.
While the need to proceed efficiently is real, that should not be at the expense of careful consideration of the long-term best interests of the region.
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=e5822d4b-2531-4f71-9bb0-128eaf43324c
------------------------------
ARESST: CRD staff opinion is not the same as professional legal opinion on the legality and applicability of the new federal regulations. Also, no environmental impact assessment mention yet? And of course, no referendum planned to confirm that CRD residents might have changed their vote since 1992 CRD referendum rejected a land-based sewage treatment plant.
CRD DIRECTOR KEPT IN CHECK ON SEWAGE (ANDERSON AND ARESST MENTION)
Daniel Palmer
Victoria News
August 10, 2012
Capital Regional District directors who hinder progress on the upcoming secondary sewage treatment project could face steep fines – even jail time – under new federal regulations.
CRD staff presented a report on new Fisheries Act regulations that warns directors if they intentionally do not meet the 2020 deadline for the project, they could be fined up to $500,000 or face two years in prison.
“That’s for every individual incident, and each day the violation occurs is a separate incident,” said Denise Blackwell, chair of the CRD’s liquid waste management committee.
The federal wastewater regulations, brought into effect last month, identify nearly 400 communities across Canada that are considered high risk for their lack of secondary sewage treatment.
“The federal government believes we’re their number one target for not meeting these regulations, and that’s why they’re giving us $280 million,” Blackwell said.
The federal and provincial governments have agreed to fund two-thirds of the Capital Region’s $782-million project, while the CRD will foot the remainder.
The CRD commitment to the project was never in doubt. But critics have been lobbying the regional district to request an exemption under the regulations and avoid the huge public expenditure.
The Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment (ARESST) purports the current system of pumping screened sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca is environmentally sound.
But CRD staff wrote in their report that “there are no opportunities to get an exemption from the new regulations, unless the facility is located in the north,” specifying only Nunavut, Northwest Territories and parts of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador as eligible areas.
Former federal environment minister David Anderson told the News that the regulations should be adjusted to allow regions like Greater Victoria the chance to utilize its unique geographical advantages for sewage treatment.
“If the federal government decided to have the same snow-removal requirements for Victoria as in Quebec, we would call that ridiculous,” Anderson said.
When the CRD passes a bylaw later this month, a process will begin to appoint a panel of seven experts who will run the project. While no CRD directors will sit on the panel, the bylaw will contain explicit language to ensure financial accountability, Blackwell said.
“Any changes to the budget in any way, shape or form have to come back to (the CRD).”
The panel should be in place by November. Its first task will be to solicit requests for qualifications from interested companies for the McLoughlin Plant design and construction.
------------------------------
ESQUIMALT COUNCIL MEET, 11 JUNE MINUTES - SEWAGE SITES NOTE SENT TO VICTORIA
Development Services
(2) Review of the City of Victoria’s Proposed Official Community Plan, Staff Report No. DEV-12-027
Council comments:
- Add reference to sewage treatment – question why there was no indication of smaller sites for sewage treatment in OCP;
MOTION: Moved by Councillor Brame/Councillor Morrison:
The Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the comments on the City of Victoria’s proposed Official Community Plan that are attached as Schedule “A” to Staff Report No. DEV-12-027 be endorsed with the addition of a question why there was no mention of smaller sites for sewage treatment, and forwarded to the City of Victoria via a letter from the Director of Development Services followed by a letter from the Mayor once Council adopts the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
------------------------------
LETTER: SCIENCE SHOULD EXAMINE PIPELINE'S TECHNICAL RISKS (BROWN, J)
James Brown
Times Colonist
August 09, 2012
Re: "PM says science to govern pipeline," Aug. 8.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly says the only way to handle controversial projects is to have an independent scientific and engineering evaluation.
I presume he also expects such an evaluation to include the technical risks that are inevitably part of any project. With this technical evaluation cost and economic risk/reward assessments can be made creating a comprehensive picture from which a decision is feasible and more likely to be the correct one.
My concern is this: Why does Harper endorse this view for the Enbridge project and not for for the proposed sewage-treatment plant in Victoria? That seems to be governed by a federal edict that all towns must have a sewage plant with secondary treatment, whether it needs it or not.
I doubt if any scientist or engineer with any knowledge on this subject believes Victoria requires it. And now we are to have a commission whose remit will undoubtedly be: Build this plant. If a need assessment is now a thing of the past, we can only hope the commission will be capable of reviewing the current cost estimate before work starts.
James Brown
Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: EXTENDED SEWAGE SYSTEM WILL COST US FAR LESS (SHERWIN)
Ian M. Sherwin
Times Colonist
August 10, 2012
Re: "Unelected team to run big sewage project," Aug. 8.
Are we planning to drink the Pacific Ocean? The residents of the St. Lawrence Valley must and do drink the sewage of those upstream, as do many less fortunate inland dwellers.
Victoria, by contrast, has available a huge volume of clear, clean water, and for less than we are spending on an unnecessary bridge, we could triple our present resource.
A galaxy of hard-nosed scientists who have studied the matter at length have concluded that artificial treatment is unnecessary by reason of the oxygenation provided by the extreme natural twice-daily reversing tidal currents, which have been measured to reach nine knots at Clover Point.
This extreme turbulence is the intelligent use of megawatts of natural tidal power, which otherwise must be generated artificially at great cost in dollars and at cost to the environment.
It is for the reason of this extreme turbulence that the city went cheap and only built the outfall to one half its designed length.
Now that Oak Bay and Saanich sewage has been added, this outfall should be extended to its full designed length, which could be now be done in a few months for one per cent of the cost of this insane artificial project.
Now that the massive earthquake rupture zone has been moved 50 kilometres closer to Victoria, natural gravity systems (with seaward reliefs), which we largely have, is clearly the way to go.
Science and common sense should trump Ottawa's one-size-fits-all hysteria.
Ian M. Sherwin
Victoria
------------------------------
LETTER: SAY NO TO A P3 SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECT (STUART)
Victoria News
August 09, 2012
The Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition urges the Capital Regional District to recall, and remind the provincial and federal governments of the many meetings at which we and other groups and individuals spoke out against a public-private-partnership (P3) approach to this project.
We also urge you not to bow to senior level government pressures in favour of a P3, and to reject any grants from them conditional upon a P3.
If the senior level governments continue to mandate the project, then they must be made to understand local conditions and concerns, and that local taxpayers will not be bullied by them.
We were pleased that the CRD business plan submitted to the provincial government called for a maximum of 20 per cent P3. Now we are dismayed that senior governments have paid no heed to your considered plan.
Do our provincial and federal politicians not realize that we understand that in the end, the users – the taxed public – will pay far more if we go the P3 route?
There is a string of unsuccessful P3 projects in this province and country, and literally around the world.
What the provincial and federal governments are doing is an attempt to make them look good now while loading the costs on to future generations through multi-decade P3 agreements, with any profits generated by the system going to corporations.
Nancy Stuart
Saanich
------------------------------
LETTER: LOOK TO THE ANIMALS FOR SEWAGE SOLUTION (WILSON)
Florence Wilson
Times Colonist
August 12, 2012
Has anybody ever studied what the whales, seals, porpoises, halibut, clams, salmon, gulls and all the other fish, birds and animals that live in the water have for a sewage disposal-treatment plant?
They all eat, they all have stomachs and intestines and they all have to empty them, and I have never heard they come ashore to do that.
I believe lake and river dwellers have the same problem. If we could learn their secret we could clean up the whole country.
Florence Wilson
Victoria
------------------------------
LETTER: CYCLE SYSTEM BETTER THAN NEW SEWAGE PLANT (MURPHY)
Cycle system better than new sewage plant
Heather Murphy
Times Colonist
August 14, 2012
Re: "Cycling upgrades in capital could cost $220 million," Aug. 12.
It makes more sense from an environmental, social and financial perspective to spend our money improving pedestrian and bicycle rights-of-way than on replacing our present environmentally sound sewage processing system.
If I, an ordinary citizen and retired nurse, can figure that out, why can't our elected politicians? And, if our politicians are told by other higher-level politicians that it is the law to have a secondary sewage processing system, why don't our local politicians work toward Victoria's exemption from this law?
Who benefits from the decision to build a new sewage-processing plant?
Heather Murphy
Victoria
------------------------------
ARESST: Just think sewage plant instead of pipeline in letter below because building and operating a complex land-based sewage plant + energy centre in an urban area might be just as risky as a pipeline in Northern BC, but with the added need to compare net impacts and benefits our current system to proposed system.
LETTER: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE HURRIED (DREHER)
Wilf Dreher
Times Colonist
August 10, 2012
Re: "Science to decide fate of pipeline, Harper says," Aug. 8.
My jaw dropped when I heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on science to pull a rabbit out of the Northern Gateway hat.
Seriously? It looks pretty hypocritical, given his government's hostile attitude towards all things scientific.
I have worked in the environmental assessment field in northwestern B.C. for 15 years and know firsthand the unpredictability of the remote and rugged coast mountains through which the pipeline and tankers would have to pass.
The pipeline route crosses hundreds, if not thousands, of streams, for most of which there is very little or no scientific data such as stream flows, geotechnical, fisheries and other ecosystem values.
However, the recently "streamlined" environmental assessment process is to be concluded by end of 2013, much too short a time to collect credible data required to carry out any serious environmental assessment.
In the absence of hard data, the risk assessment becomes an "educated guess," as we will never have complete certainty about many environmental factors.
How is science then going to decide? The risk to the environment will never be zero and a hurried assessment process won't even allow the determination of this risk with any kind of confidence.
But then, do we want to accept any level of risk in the face of truly catastrophic consequences?
Wilf Dreher
Courtenay
------------------------------
END
