- CRD BOARD MEETING 12 SEPT, 1:30PM (CALWMC BUDGET, CONSULTING SERVICES APPROVAL)
- MINUTES FROM 8 AUGUST CRD BOARD MEET (SEWAGE "HIGH RISK" EXPLAINED BY HULL)
- DAVID ANDERSON POINTS TO PROBLEMATIC 2003 MEMO NOW ON GSA WEBSITE
- ESQUIMALT DISCUSSING SEWAGE COST ALLOCATION, 10 SEPT (but no discussion of sewage plant enviro impacts)
- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS PREVENT PROBLEMS
------------------------------
DAVID ANDERSON POINTS TO PROBLEMATIC 2003 MEMO NOW ON GSA WEBSITE
David Anderson has found that a pro treatment advocate, Gerald Graham, referenced in his tweet a 2003 memo where David was trying to probe for factual information from his Departmental staff, and has David notes, "It gives the texts of some rather unsatisfactory replies I received as Minister from the Department in response to some questions I put to the bureaucrats after a recommendation to approve secondary treatment had been put to me."
The 12-page, 1.8 MB pdf is on the sewage plant advocates' Georgia Strait Alliance ("Memo from Environment Canada staff to former Minister David Anderson regarding CRD sewage - March 2003") website, although its hard to know how it supports any notion of a land-based sewage treatment plant.
ESQUIMALT DISCUSSING SEWAGE COST ALLOCATION, 10 SEPT (but no discussion of sewage plant enviro impacts)
----------------------------------
------------------------------
END.
- DAVID ANDERSON POINTS TO PROBLEMATIC 2003 MEMO NOW ON GSA WEBSITE
- ESQUIMALT DISCUSSING SEWAGE COST ALLOCATION, 10 SEPT (but no discussion of sewage plant enviro impacts)
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS PREVENT PROBLEMS
------------------------------
CRD BOARD MEETING 12 SEPT, 1:30PM (CALWMC BUDGET, CONSULTING SERVICES APPROVAL)
AGENDA:
5.1 CORE AREA LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – August 22, 2012
1.• Six-Month Budget Summary and Approval to Establish Program Management Office
That the six-month budget for the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program be approved.
3. Program Management Consulting Services Work Program and Fees
That an increase of $3,360,125 to Stantec Consulting’s existing contract be approved.
------------
ARESST: Excerpt of Jack Hull's explanation why Victoria sewage rated as "high risk":
J. Hull advised that the high risk rating is a result of large flow volumes and relatively high carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and suspended solid concentrations.
MINUTES FROM 8 AUGUST CRD BOARD MEET (SEWAGE "HIGH RISK" EXPLAINED BY HULL)
2. Implications of New Federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations
MOVED by Director Blackwell, SECONDED by Alternate Director Cullington,
That the report be received for information.
5.1 CORE AREA LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – August 8, 2012
1. A Bylaw for the Establishment of a Commission to Administer the Core Area
Wastewater Treatment Program
This item was withdrawn from the agenda because it was not forwarded from Committee.
2. Implications of New Federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations
MOVED by Director Derman, SECONDED by Director Desjardins,
That the report be referred back to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee for further explanation
on the rationale for the high risk rating for the Clover Point and Macaulay Point outfalls.
J. Hull advised that the high risk rating is a result of large flow volumes and relatively high carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and suspended solid concentrations.
The question on the referral motion was called.
DEFEATED
OPPOSED:
Blackwell, Brice, Coleman, Cullington, Gerrard, Jensen, Leonard, Murdock, Screech, Young
The question on the main motion was called.
Derman: OPPOSED
CARRIED
-------------
5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE – July 25, 2012
1. Strategy for Using Sewage Heat for District Energy Systems
MOVED by Director Desjardins, SECONDED by Director Derman,
That the draft Interim Strategy for Enabling Viable Sewage Heat Recovery and Use, as attached in Appendix A to the staff report, be approved.
CARRIED
2. Private, Non-Profit and Education Sector Information Updates
The need to keep current on new integrated resource recovery technologies was highlighted. The challenges of doing this under the current CRD governance structure whereby the solid waste function is regional and the liquid waste function is sub-regional, was raised. The reasons why the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee had already decided against this proposal were reiterated.
MOVED by Director Desjardins, SECONDED by Director Derman,
That consideration of the following item be postponed pending clarification of the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Sustainability and Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committees:
1) That staff engage a consultant to issue a request for expression of interest to the private, non-profit and education sectors involved in resource recovery and integrated waste management, compile the information submitted and prepare a report; and
2) That:
a) The report be focused on solid waste management and be funded from the solid waste function; OR
b) The report include both solid and liquid waste management and be funded from the solid waste, core area and Saanich Peninsula liquid waste management plan budgets.
CARRIED
Blackwell OPPOSED
Page 10:
Appointment of Jack Hull as Interim Project Director of the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program (CAWTP)
Mr. Jack Hull was appointed to a full-time term position, on an employee contract basis, as Interim Project Director of the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program until December 31, 2013. The Capital Regional District will commence the process of recruiting a General Manager of Integrated Water Services.
-----------------------------------
DAVID ANDERSON POINTS TO PROBLEMATIC 2003 MEMO NOW ON GSA WEBSITE
David Anderson has found that a pro treatment advocate, Gerald Graham, referenced in his tweet a 2003 memo where David was trying to probe for factual information from his Departmental staff, and has David notes, "It gives the texts of some rather unsatisfactory replies I received as Minister from the Department in response to some questions I put to the bureaucrats after a recommendation to approve secondary treatment had been put to me."
The 12-page, 1.8 MB pdf is on the sewage plant advocates' Georgia Strait Alliance ("Memo from Environment Canada staff to former Minister David Anderson regarding CRD sewage - March 2003") website, although its hard to know how it supports any notion of a land-based sewage treatment plant.
It did, however, as David points out, "illustrates my frustration with the Department for the use of invalid comparisons and for its failure to take receiving water conditions into account."
------------------------------
------------------------------
ESQUIMALT DISCUSSING SEWAGE COST ALLOCATION, 10 SEPT (but no discussion of sewage plant enviro impacts)
Esquimalt is discussing a Strategic Priorities report from their Engineering Services, about how to allocate CRD sewage cost. However, no mention of any discussion
of environmental impacts of the sewage plant on Esquimalt's land or marine areas by Esquimalt's otherwise-active Environmental Advisory Committee.
Agenda, Esquimalt Special Committee of the Whole Meeting, 10 September, 6:15pm.
----------------------------------
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS PREVENT PROBLEMS
PETER JULIAN
VANCOUVER SUN
SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Environment Minister Peter Kent may deny his government has abandoned
environmental protection, as he did in an opinion piece published in The
Vancouver Sun Aug. 28, but the facts prove otherwise.
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012), was rammed
through Parliament as part of the omnibus budget bill. The budget repealed
the existing act, and replaced it with an entirely new regime, which
became law July 6, with accompanying regulations. There was no public
comment period on draft regulations; instead the government relied on the
advice of project proponents and industry groups.
Not only is this a reversal of long-standing government practice to
consult broadly on draft regulations, it is entirely contrary to the
fundamental principle of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which
is - or was - to engage the Canadian public and to encourage and assist
their participation in decision-making.
One of the primary problems is the change in the determination of what
kinds of projects require an assessment. Instead of screening broad
classes of projects to determine if there was a need for an assessment, we
now have a narrow, prescribed list of projects and activities which will
be assessed. If it's not on the list, it's not evaluated.
In testimony before the finance sub-committee on Bill C-38 (the omnibus
budget bill), Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughn summed up the result
of these changes: "What is clear is that there will be significantly fewer
environmental assessments. The range is from 4,000 to 6,000 a year to
probably 20 to 30 a year which will be under the federal regime."
This is particularly troublesome, as eliminating environmental assessments
puts the thousands of jobs that rely on a clean environment at risk.
B.C.'s fisheries and tourism industries employ more than 40,000 people,
and add an estimated $1 billion to the province's economy annually.
What's not on the list? There's no longer a federal assessment of Teck
Coal's expansion of coal mining operations at Line Creek. Banks Island
North Wind Energy Project's federal assessment has been cancelled.
In fact, run of river hydro, gravel extraction, seismic surveys and
testing, prescribed burns in national parks - none are on the list of
projects that the federal government thinks deserve any scrutiny. Sure,
the minister can designate other projects, but it will be cumbersome,
time-consuming, bureaucratic and expensive for regulators - or the
minister - to rectify omissions on a case-by-case basis.
The argument that other jurisdictions - provinces or municipalities - will
step in to take over environmental assessments rings hollow, especially in
light of a scathing report by the B.C. environment commissioner on the
sorry state of the provincial environmental assessment regime.
The National Energy Board, which the minister claims can make up the slack
for the cut environmental assessments, is under pressure by the government
to deliver results that conform to Conservative policy.
The increased amount of influence that the government has over the NEB, as
well as the fact that the government can at any time override the findings
of the board, show that independent environmental assessments are needed
more than ever.
Environmental assessment is meant to be a preventive measure, a
look-before-you-leap tool.
Contrary to the minister's assertions, the Harper government is not open
to public input. It has, however, undertaken limited, hasty, exclusive
consultations with certain hand-picked groups to solicit possible
amendments to the regulations.
While New Democrats welcome that the government has clearly recognized
that improvements to their rushed regulations are both urgent and
necessary, we have called on the minister to conduct meaningful,
Canada-wide public consultations on the CEAA 2012 regulations this fall.
- Peter Julian is the MP for Burnaby-New Westminster and the NDP energy
and natural resources critic.
http://www.vancouversun.com/
PETER JULIAN
VANCOUVER SUN
SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Environment Minister Peter Kent may deny his government has abandoned
environmental protection, as he did in an opinion piece published in The
Vancouver Sun Aug. 28, but the facts prove otherwise.
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012), was rammed
through Parliament as part of the omnibus budget bill. The budget repealed
the existing act, and replaced it with an entirely new regime, which
became law July 6, with accompanying regulations. There was no public
comment period on draft regulations; instead the government relied on the
advice of project proponents and industry groups.
Not only is this a reversal of long-standing government practice to
consult broadly on draft regulations, it is entirely contrary to the
fundamental principle of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which
is - or was - to engage the Canadian public and to encourage and assist
their participation in decision-making.
One of the primary problems is the change in the determination of what
kinds of projects require an assessment. Instead of screening broad
classes of projects to determine if there was a need for an assessment, we
now have a narrow, prescribed list of projects and activities which will
be assessed. If it's not on the list, it's not evaluated.
In testimony before the finance sub-committee on Bill C-38 (the omnibus
budget bill), Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughn summed up the result
of these changes: "What is clear is that there will be significantly fewer
environmental assessments. The range is from 4,000 to 6,000 a year to
probably 20 to 30 a year which will be under the federal regime."
This is particularly troublesome, as eliminating environmental assessments
puts the thousands of jobs that rely on a clean environment at risk.
B.C.'s fisheries and tourism industries employ more than 40,000 people,
and add an estimated $1 billion to the province's economy annually.
What's not on the list? There's no longer a federal assessment of Teck
Coal's expansion of coal mining operations at Line Creek. Banks Island
North Wind Energy Project's federal assessment has been cancelled.
In fact, run of river hydro, gravel extraction, seismic surveys and
testing, prescribed burns in national parks - none are on the list of
projects that the federal government thinks deserve any scrutiny. Sure,
the minister can designate other projects, but it will be cumbersome,
time-consuming, bureaucratic and expensive for regulators - or the
minister - to rectify omissions on a case-by-case basis.
The argument that other jurisdictions - provinces or municipalities - will
step in to take over environmental assessments rings hollow, especially in
light of a scathing report by the B.C. environment commissioner on the
sorry state of the provincial environmental assessment regime.
The National Energy Board, which the minister claims can make up the slack
for the cut environmental assessments, is under pressure by the government
to deliver results that conform to Conservative policy.
The increased amount of influence that the government has over the NEB, as
well as the fact that the government can at any time override the findings
of the board, show that independent environmental assessments are needed
more than ever.
Environmental assessment is meant to be a preventive measure, a
look-before-you-leap tool.
Contrary to the minister's assertions, the Harper government is not open
to public input. It has, however, undertaken limited, hasty, exclusive
consultations with certain hand-picked groups to solicit possible
amendments to the regulations.
While New Democrats welcome that the government has clearly recognized
that improvements to their rushed regulations are both urgent and
necessary, we have called on the minister to conduct meaningful,
Canada-wide public consultations on the CEAA 2012 regulations this fall.
- Peter Julian is the MP for Burnaby-New Westminster and the NDP energy
and natural resources critic.
http://www.vancouversun.com/
------------------------------
END.
