CRD SEWAGE NEWS THIS WEEK
- CRD Finance Committee discusses "pay-forward" scheme.
LETTERS
- Central system has benefits (Brcic)
=============
CUPE 374's "Keep It Public" update
CUPE 374's "Keep It Public" update signals its continuing advocacy for "public system":
---------
CRD Finance Committee discusses "pay-forward" scheme.Discussion at CRD Finance Committee meeting 2 Sept (00:44:05 minutes to 01:05:00 minutes) included sewage project "pay-forward" scheme that has resulted in escalating annual charges (table below) earlier criticized by Langford Mayor Young (letter below).
Video/audio + agenda of meeting: http://crd.ca.granicus.com/
Escalating "pay-forward" cost table:
--------
Mayor Young letter:
----------
LETTERS
Central system has benefits (Brcic)
Saanich News
Saanich News
Sep 1, 2015
Mr. Regier (Letters, Aug. 21)supports the notion that many smaller treatment plants are more cost effective to build than a central plant. He ignores the peer reviewed engineering analysis that shows the contrary. He also ignores the extensive network of piping systems required for a distributed system to provide the redundancies necessary to meet effluent discharge requirements and to ensure public health and freshwater resources are protected at all times.
Mr. Regier also fails to mention life cycle costs and the excessive operating and maintenance costs for a distributed system. For instance, the central treatment plant in the CRD’s approved liquid waste management plant requires approximately 15 full-time staff to operate and maintain the facility. A distributed system with 10 smaller plants would require about five full-time employees per plant for operation and maintenance for a total of about 50 full-time employees. Over 75 years, the taxpayers could pay as much as $200 million more just for labour to operate and maintain a distributed system.
The notion that a distributed sewage treatment system is more cost-effective than a central sewage treatment plant is a supposition with no solid foundation.
Tony Brcic
Mr. Regier (Letters, Aug. 21)supports the notion that many smaller treatment plants are more cost effective to build than a central plant. He ignores the peer reviewed engineering analysis that shows the contrary. He also ignores the extensive network of piping systems required for a distributed system to provide the redundancies necessary to meet effluent discharge requirements and to ensure public health and freshwater resources are protected at all times.
Mr. Regier also fails to mention life cycle costs and the excessive operating and maintenance costs for a distributed system. For instance, the central treatment plant in the CRD’s approved liquid waste management plant requires approximately 15 full-time staff to operate and maintain the facility. A distributed system with 10 smaller plants would require about five full-time employees per plant for operation and maintenance for a total of about 50 full-time employees. Over 75 years, the taxpayers could pay as much as $200 million more just for labour to operate and maintain a distributed system.
The notion that a distributed sewage treatment system is more cost-effective than a central sewage treatment plant is a supposition with no solid foundation.
Tony Brcic
------------
