ARESST ACTION:
- NEW ARESST TWITTER ACCOUNT!
- ARESST AGM 7 NOVEMBER!
- ARESSTERS WHO ATTENDED OUR TOWN HALL - DO MINI-SURVEY TO KNOW HOW YOU HEARD ABOUT IT
- POLITICOS CALL FOR STUDY ON SEWAGE TREATMENT - FRONT PAGE NEWS!
- CFAX CANDIDATES DEBATE 25 OCT - SEWAGE INCLUDED
- CRD SEWAGE COMMITTEE 10 OCTOBER - ARESSTERS AND DISSENTERS!
CRD-RELATED SEWAGE NEWS:
- LETTER: DUMPING OF SEWAGE CLOUDS THE ISSUE
- LETTER: MARCHING TO ABYSS OF SEWAGE TREATMENT
- MR. FLOATIE ENDORSES NDP'S RANKIN IN VICTORIA BYELECTION
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
- WHAT BRIDGE ARE WE GETTING, AND AT WHAT COST?
- TRICLOSAN - A SOURCE CONTROL ISSUE?
------------------------------
We now have a Twitter account: https://twitter.com/
Please follow us to help us get the word out!
--------------------------
ARESST AGM 7 NOVEMBER!
ARESST AGM 7 NOVEMBER!
The Annual General Meeting of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sensitive Sewage Treatment ( ARESST )
Guest Speaker: Ted Dew-Jones*, author of Victoria 's Sewage Circus.
The purpose of the meeting will be:
- the election of the 2013 Board of Directors,
- the receipt of the Annual Report of the Board of Directors
- the presentation of the Annual Financial Statement.
November 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Meeting Room of the Windsor Pavilion
2451 Windsor Road, Victoria BC, V8S 5H3 (in Oak Bay)
http://goo.gl/maps/EWVjt
The annual membership fee of $20 is due at or before the meeting.
We look forward to seeing all members of ARESST in attendance. Bring a friend.
John Bergbusch, Chair,
On behalf of the Board of Directors
Background:
Ted Dew-Jones is a professional engineer. He joined the British Columbia Provincial Pollution Control Branch in 1968. In 1991 he published Victoria's Sewage Circus to argue that politicians and the public were inclined to spend too much money on treatment of sewage due to unscientific assumptions.
"My main incentive for writing is to try and reverse the present widespread disregard for scholarship and accountability," he says. "Twenty years of monitoring and thirty years of research might as well not have been done if those promoting treatment have their way. I view scholarship as critical to democracy."
------------------------------
Stephen Andrew - All Candidates debate for the Victoria By-Election
Victorians can be forgiven for wondering what's going on with the Johnson Street Bridge. It has been nearly two years since the November 2010 referendum, and the only visible work has been to relocate a telecom duct and cut up the old bridge's rail span. The City of Victoria is negotiating with companies to build a new bridge, but it has extended the bid deadline three times, most recently to Oct. 30.
Residents need to be concerned, because the city looks increasingly desperate to get a deal. Last month, it quietly issued a revised request for proposals to the three companies bidding on the project - and the new document increases risks to taxpayers, and may produce a bridge different from the one shown in pre-referendum advertising.
In the original request for proposals, the companies had to submit a fixed price to build the bridge. Now they may submit a "not to exceed" price, which the city can try to negotiate down to a fixed price later on.
In the original RFP, the companies could only propose "optimizations" to the bridge architecture. Now they can assume "technical design responsibility for the complete project," and let their own engineers design the bridge.
These changes suggest the companies aren't willing to commit to a fixed price because they don't want to assume all the risk of building a one-of-a-kind bridge with an incomplete design. This sounds like the Fast Cat ferries all over again, or the Vancouver Convention Centre, which doubled in cost because construction started before the design was finished.
These changes raise other problems, too.
First, it's unclear how much the design can be modified before it violates the city's referendum bylaw, which authorized council to build a bridge "generally in accordance with the general plans on file at Victoria City Hall." What was in those plans?
Also, the bidding process is now likely to produce three different bridges, in function and appearance. But the decision about which one to pursue will be made by an evaluation committee of three city engineers and a consultant - not by councillors or the public.
The evaluation committee will then present its preferred bid to councillors, who only get to say Yes or No to it, with few details about bids No. 2 and No. 3. The mayor has admitted he has no "Plan B" if councillors vote No, so they will be under pressure to say Yes - turning our elected officials into a rubber stamp to approve a staff decision.
The public will be told nothing. The bids and designs will not be released. Council will get the evaluation committee's decision in a closed meeting, and will vote on it in another closed meeting.
In short, we're likely to get a different bridge, without a fixed price, and the entire deal will be negotiated behind closed doors.
This is tragic for many reasons, and one is that we would have saved time and money if we'd just let the companies design the bridge in the first place, instead of persisting with an architectural experiment.
One of the companies built a five-lane drawbridge in Miami in 2010 for $45 million. (Add $10 million for "lifeline" seismic capacity, and it would still be cheaper than the $66 million we're budgeting here.) Another built a six-lane drawbridge with bike lanes in Miami in 2009 for $64 million.
Those are conventional double-leaf drawbridges that open in the middle.
Victoria decided to build a single-leaf bridge, requiring a huge counterweight and pier building, mainly because that design is best for carrying railway traffic - which was later removed from the plans. That's another tragedy.
Some will say we've gone too far to change course now. But if we're headed in the wrong direction, relentlessly pushing forward isn't a good idea.
- Ross Crockford is a director of johnsonstreetbridge.org
http://www2.canada.com/
----------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
ARESSTERS WHO ATTENDED OUR TOWN HALL - DO SHORT SURVEY TO KNOW HOW YOU HEARD ABOUT IT
How did you learn about our first ARESST Town Hall? We've created an online survey to find this out:
------------------------------
POLITICOS CALL FOR STUDY ON SEWAGE TREATMENT - FRONT PAGE NEWS!
------------------------------
CFAX CANDIDATES DEBATE 25 OCT- SEWAGE INCLUDED
Sewage discussion begins at 35:00 minute mark in the online audio file:
LETTER: DUMPING OF SEWAGE CLOUDS THE ISSUE
Peter Smilanich,
As an Edmontonian who is opposed to the proposed West Coast pipeline, my position would be a lot easier to defend if I were not also required to explain the dumping of untreated sewage by Victoria into the "pristine" waters off your coastline.
Peter Smilanich
Edmonton
http://www2.canada.com/
WHAT BRIDGE ARE WE GETTING, AND AT WHAT COST?
New Johnson Street span may be redesigned, for an uncertain price
Ross Crockford
Times Colonist
October 28, 2012
CLICK HERE TO SEND LETTER TO TIMES COLONIST
------------------------------
CRD SEWAGE COMMITTEE 10 OCTOBER - ARESSTERS AND DISSENTERS!
4.Presentations/Delegations
1) Filippo Ferri re Item 5: Mr. Ferri addressed the issues concerning the aesthetics of the Macaulay Point pump station, and hoped that any future wastewater construction would blend into the neighbourhood, like Clover Point, Currie Road or Caledonia pump stations.
2) Dr. Shaun Peck re Items 5 and 6: Dr. Peck spoke against the current plan and expressed concern about the Commission bylaw. He also questioned what the numbers quoted in the cost allocation report included.
The Committee requested written rationale from the provincial government as to why no elected official will be on the Commission, which is still a CRD Commission, and would operate under the CRD Procedure Bylaw.
3) Richard Atwell: Mr. Atwell spoke on behalf of ARESST. He spoke against the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program, stating that he felt it was a bad plan.
---
MOVED by Director Desjardins,
That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee request a re-evaluation of the federal environmental standing of the CRD and request an exemption in the federal wastewater regulations.
And that the CRD engage the prominent scientists who are united in their opinion that we are not harming the environment, and that we have the wrong plan.
The Chair ruled the motion out of order and directed that it be presented as a Notice of Motion under New Business.
-----------------
7. New Business - Notice of Motion from Director Derman and Director Desjardins.
Director Derman
That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee:
1. Suspend further action on the current sewage treatment project titled: The Path Forward.
2. Commit to development of a plan for sewage treatment that:
a. Optimally contributes to global and local environmental issues particularly those involved in climate change.
b. Contributes to a sustainable financial environment for regional, provincial and federal taxpayers by substantially reducing or eliminating the life cycle costs involved in the current project.
c. Responds to changes in the region anticipated by the Regional Growth Study (RGS)
d. Positions itself to take advantage of emerging technology such as microbial fuel cells which promise very considerable environmental benefits at greatly reduced or net positive life cycle costs.
3. Based on extensive scientific and health assessments that indicate minimal harm and risk, lobby the federal government, at both the staff and the political level, to categorize current sewage practices in the Core Area as “low risk”. Such a characterization would require compliance with federal regulations by 2040.
4. Based on extensive scientific and health assessments that indicate minimal harm and risk, lobby the provincial government, at both the staff and the political level, to modify the order to treat so that is consistent with the minimal risks presented by current core area sewage practices.
Director Desjardins
That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee request a re-evaluation of the federal environmental standing of the CRD and request an exemption in the federal wastewater regulations.
And that the CRD engage the prominent scientists who are united in their opinion that we are not harming the environment, and that we have the wrong plan.
------------------------------
CRD-RELATED SEWAGE NEWS:
Peter Smilanich,
As an Edmontonian who is opposed to the proposed West Coast pipeline, my position would be a lot easier to defend if I were not also required to explain the dumping of untreated sewage by Victoria into the "pristine" waters off your coastline.
Peter Smilanich
Edmonton
http://www2.canada.com/
------------------------------
LETTER: MARCHING TO ABYSS OF SEWAGE TREATMENT
Letters
Saanich News
October 25, 2012
Re: Tax increase poor treatment, (Writer’s Block, Oct. 19); “Political will on sewage treatment emerging in CRD” and “Scientists, former MP likely have facts straight” (Letters, Oct. 19)
It is both a revealing and a welcome day when a long-established, non-partisan, widely read and respected community newspaper deems it acceptable to publish three items concerning the CRD’s secondary sewage treatment plans, all of which are against it.
It is not difficult to see this event as yet another station of a newly burgeoning popular movement that seeks a way to halt (or at least delay) that destructive juggernaut that threatens the environmental and fiscal well being of the entire region.
All this renewed activity is directly attributable to the release of the long-awaited detailed wastewater engineering plan at the end of September.
The technical one is nothing short of frightening in its implications. Potential environmental dangers accompany every step of the planned construction.
The other part, concerning the financing of the project, cannot be called anything other than pie-in-the-sky.
Current estimates of construction costs ($783 million), provincial and federal contributions ($501 million), and property tax increases of between $232 and $391 per year are actually worse than that.
The contribution of at least the federal government’s share is not even close to being guaranteed, while any and all overruns will be the sole responsibility of local taxpayers. Can anyone doubt, then, that potential property tax increases will be in the neighbourhood of $500 to $700 per year – if we are lucky.
In the meantime, the powers-that-be at the CRD continue to march us lemmings toward the abyss, heedless of science and overwhelming popular opposition, and bereft even of common sense.
Each and every tax payer-elector opposed to the travesty of the current secondary sewage treatment plan must make it her or his business to apprise local, provincial, and federal politicians that their election or re-election will depend, to a large extent, on the position they take in this matter.
Zoltan Roman
Saanich
-------
Lease Contract for Program Management Office – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program
The lease contract with The Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada for the 5th floor space at 1675 Douglas Street was approved.
Location on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/R5prD
------------------------------
MR. FLOATIE ENDORSES NDP'S RANKIN IN VICTORIA BYELECTION
Luke Simcoe
26 October 2012
Metro Victoria
Even though he’s now living in Saanich, the infamous Mr. Floatie is weighing in on Victoria’s upcoming byelection.
“I would support Murray Rankin, because he supports sewage treatment,” James Skwarok said on Friday.
Skwarok became something of an icon in Victoria when, in 2004, he began dressing up as Mr. Floatie — a bowtie-wearing piece of fecal matter — and campaigning in favour of a sewage treatment plant. He was a fixture on the local waterfront for years, made presentations to city council while in costume and produced a series of YouTube videos championing the cause.
The Capital Region District’s proposal for a $783-million sewage treatment facility has become a hot-button issue heading into next month’s byelection. The NDP’s Rankin supports the plan, which is backed by the federal and provincial governments. However, his opponents, including the Liberals’ Paul Summerville and the Greens’ Donald Galloway, have questioned whether it’s necessary.
Skwarok is taking some time off from being Mr. Floatie to complete a master’s degree in environmental education at Royal Roads, but says he was irked by Summerville’s recent comments.
In an Oct. 19 press release lambasting the cost of the proposed facility, the Liberal candidate called Mr. Floatie “the figment of a dirty mind.”
“Mr. Floatie is the product of his dirty behind,” Skwarok replied in the high-pitched voice associated with his character.
Skwarok says the cost of treating Victoria’s sewage is worth it to protect the environment.
“If we want to take care of the environment, then we’re going to have to pay for it,” he said.
Mr. Floatie is not without his detractors.
In addition to Summerville, scientists at the University of Victoria have spoken out against his unique brand of activism.
“He was very good at manipulating the media and getting publicity,” says Dr. Tom Pedersen. “But most of what he says is an absolute fabrication.”
Pedersen, the director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, claims there is no negative impact on the environment from Victoria’s current system. He says people like Skwarok disregard the science of sewage because they’re uncomfortable with the subject of human waste.
“It’s poop,” he says. “People don’t like the idea of putting poop in the sea.”
------------------------------
GENERAL SEWAGE-RELATED NEWS:
New Johnson Street span may be redesigned, for an uncertain price
Ross Crockford
Times Colonist
October 28, 2012
CLICK HERE TO SEND LETTER TO TIMES COLONIST
Victorians can be forgiven for wondering what's going on with the Johnson Street Bridge. It has been nearly two years since the November 2010 referendum, and the only visible work has been to relocate a telecom duct and cut up the old bridge's rail span. The City of Victoria is negotiating with companies to build a new bridge, but it has extended the bid deadline three times, most recently to Oct. 30.
Residents need to be concerned, because the city looks increasingly desperate to get a deal. Last month, it quietly issued a revised request for proposals to the three companies bidding on the project - and the new document increases risks to taxpayers, and may produce a bridge different from the one shown in pre-referendum advertising.
In the original request for proposals, the companies had to submit a fixed price to build the bridge. Now they may submit a "not to exceed" price, which the city can try to negotiate down to a fixed price later on.
In the original RFP, the companies could only propose "optimizations" to the bridge architecture. Now they can assume "technical design responsibility for the complete project," and let their own engineers design the bridge.
These changes suggest the companies aren't willing to commit to a fixed price because they don't want to assume all the risk of building a one-of-a-kind bridge with an incomplete design. This sounds like the Fast Cat ferries all over again, or the Vancouver Convention Centre, which doubled in cost because construction started before the design was finished.
These changes raise other problems, too.
First, it's unclear how much the design can be modified before it violates the city's referendum bylaw, which authorized council to build a bridge "generally in accordance with the general plans on file at Victoria City Hall." What was in those plans?
Also, the bidding process is now likely to produce three different bridges, in function and appearance. But the decision about which one to pursue will be made by an evaluation committee of three city engineers and a consultant - not by councillors or the public.
The evaluation committee will then present its preferred bid to councillors, who only get to say Yes or No to it, with few details about bids No. 2 and No. 3. The mayor has admitted he has no "Plan B" if councillors vote No, so they will be under pressure to say Yes - turning our elected officials into a rubber stamp to approve a staff decision.
The public will be told nothing. The bids and designs will not be released. Council will get the evaluation committee's decision in a closed meeting, and will vote on it in another closed meeting.
In short, we're likely to get a different bridge, without a fixed price, and the entire deal will be negotiated behind closed doors.
This is tragic for many reasons, and one is that we would have saved time and money if we'd just let the companies design the bridge in the first place, instead of persisting with an architectural experiment.
One of the companies built a five-lane drawbridge in Miami in 2010 for $45 million. (Add $10 million for "lifeline" seismic capacity, and it would still be cheaper than the $66 million we're budgeting here.) Another built a six-lane drawbridge with bike lanes in Miami in 2009 for $64 million.
Those are conventional double-leaf drawbridges that open in the middle.
Victoria decided to build a single-leaf bridge, requiring a huge counterweight and pier building, mainly because that design is best for carrying railway traffic - which was later removed from the plans. That's another tragedy.
Some will say we've gone too far to change course now. But if we're headed in the wrong direction, relentlessly pushing forward isn't a good idea.
- Ross Crockford is a director of johnsonstreetbridge.org
http://www2.canada.com/
----------------------------
TRICLOSAN - A SOURCE CONTROL ISSUE?
Community concern about "chemicals of emerging concern" identifies many left-over residues from medicines, soaps and other modern chemical compounds that find their way into the waste stream. Triclosan has been the target of campaigns like the one below, but while sewage treatment may "remove" (and transfer to the sludge) a significant part of triclosan from the finished sewage water effluent, one of the big concerns of such campaigns is the actual impact of the chemical within the human body and community before it enters the sewage pipes.
Efforts to ban triclosan from consumer products suggest that the effectiveness of sewage treatment in reducing triclosan from waste is too late - its after the exposure to the chemical. "Source control" of triclosan needs to start before the chemical enters the body, not just into the waste stream. Depending on sewage treatment to reduce the impacts of such chemicals may be too late, too little
Efforts to ban triclosan from consumer products suggest that the effectiveness of sewage treatment in reducing triclosan from waste is too late - its after the exposure to the chemical. "Source control" of triclosan needs to start before the chemical enters the body, not just into the waste stream. Depending on sewage treatment to reduce the impacts of such chemicals may be too late, too little
Think of how many products you use everyday -- or even just in your morning routine. Soap, deodorant, toothpaste, mouthwash... Triclosan can commonly be found in all of these products, plus more.
Tell the Canadian government to get this known endocrine disruptor out of our products! The Canadian Medical Association has called for triclosan to be banned from consumer products out of concern that it could contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria, a.k.a. "superbugs." Triclosan is linked with thyroid problems and cancer. Triclosan harms human health and contaminates the environment when it washes down our drains, so there's no reason why it should remain allowed in consumer products. The Canadian Medical Association knows this -- now it's time to convince the government. Urge the Canadian government to ban the household use of triclosan. |
------------------------------
END
