ACTIONS:
- Sign: petition to demand review of CRD sewage plan
- Send: in your letters!
- Review: STAG survey and backgrounder
- How it went - RITE Plan table at Ogden Pt 26 April
CRD SEWAGE NEWS
Audio-Visual News:
- Atwell interview on CFAX
- Colwood's Cullington on CFAX 30 April
- CFAX Sunday covers citizen's sewage survey
- The RITE Plan's Youtube Channel
News stories:
- Sewage Treatment Action Group Survey Results
- Excerpt: Three cheers for democracy
- Excerpt: Victoria's megaproject blues
- Sewage plan soundly rejected: poll
- Comment: Delays to Seaterra program cost all of us (Sweetnam)
- Comment: Did the CRD select the best sewage-treatment plan? (Peck)
- Editorial: Bogus survey muddles issue
- Raeside sewage poll cartoon
- Sewage project 'political travesty,' says UVic prof
- Songhees First Nation seeks full membership on capital regional board
- CRD chairman invites minister to board’s sewage-plant parley
- Esquimalt mayor refutes CRD’s claim of ‘victimhood’, says impasse is the result of poor decisions
- Comment: Why we cheered when Esquimalt said no
LETTERS
- Sewage-treatment plan needs to be revisited (Boyd)
- Sewage-treatment ball is in the CRD’s court (Burton-Krahn)
- Survey first opportunity to comment on project (Carter)
- Take a second look at sewage treatment (Devitt)
- Breaking down democracy one meeting at a time (Dickson)
- Don’t vote for those who favour sewage plan (Foord)
- Alternate sewage plan would create more jobs (Maler)
- Scrap the project, save a billion (Le Noury)
- Survey showed unease with sewage project (Spencer)
- Sewage project pushed for political reasons (Trueman)
SEND IN YOUR LETTERS!
-------------------
EVENTS AND ACTIONS:
Sign petition to demand review of CRD sewage plan
The communities have created a petition that we are sponsoring:
http://sewagepetition.ca/
-----------------
Review: STAG survey and backgrounder
Review STAG's survey (scroll down to see it): http://sewagefacts.ca/
but especially also the backgrounder to be able to see how much the TC editorial (below)
misconstrued the survey:
-------------------
How it went - STAG's RITE Plan table at enviro event 26 April
CRD SEWAGE NEWS
Audio-Visual News:
Colwood's Cullington fon CFAX 30 April
http://theriteplan.ca/media/
Judith is talking about the Colwood sewage project ahead of the open house that was tonight at the Pentecostal Church (2250 Sooke Rd).
http://theriteplan.ca/media/
Judith is talking about the Colwood sewage project ahead of the open house that was tonight at the Pentecostal Church (2250 Sooke Rd).
-------------------
Atwell interview on CFAX
On the sewage survey and the release of our investigative video:
http://theriteplan.ca/media/
http://theriteplan.ca/media/
-----------------
CFAX Sunday covers citizen's sewage survey
http://theriteplan.ca/media/140504_CFAX_Richard_Atwell.m4a
View all the survey results at: http://sewagefacts.ca/
----------------
RITE Plan's Youtube Channel
Frequently updated with the most vital and interesting snippets that show the best and the worst of the CRD's sewage planning process
-------------------
News stories:
Sewage Treatment Action Group Survey Results
-----------------
Excerpt from Three cheers for democracy
LESLIE CAMPBELL,
Focus
MAY 2014
APRIL ALSO SAW plucky little Esquimalt acknowledge the will of the people and say “No” to devoting a prime parcel of harbour waterfront to a centralized sewage treatment plant for the region. Local citizens are to be congratulated for turning out in droves to public hearings on rezoning hosted by Esquimalt, as well as to a town hall debate on the CRD’s sewage treatment plans hosted by the Downtown Residents Association (note such public hearings are not being hosted by CRD itself). Citizens are making their voices heard and it is making a difference, though the CRD is proving ideologically stubborn about staying the course despite its main site having evaporated. As Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins asked in a recent TC op-ed, “Why would the CRD continue to push on full steam ahead when it does not have a clear plan?” Good question.
READ MORE: http://focusonline.ca/?
APRIL ALSO SAW plucky little Esquimalt acknowledge the will of the people and say “No” to devoting a prime parcel of harbour waterfront to a centralized sewage treatment plant for the region. Local citizens are to be congratulated for turning out in droves to public hearings on rezoning hosted by Esquimalt, as well as to a town hall debate on the CRD’s sewage treatment plans hosted by the Downtown Residents Association (note such public hearings are not being hosted by CRD itself). Citizens are making their voices heard and it is making a difference, though the CRD is proving ideologically stubborn about staying the course despite its main site having evaporated. As Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins asked in a recent TC op-ed, “Why would the CRD continue to push on full steam ahead when it does not have a clear plan?” Good question.
READ MORE: http://focusonline.ca/?
-----------------
Excerpt: Victoria's megaproject blues
The risk of cost overruns on the new bridge was hidden. Is the same thing happening with sewage treatment plans?
DAVID BROADLAND
DAVID BROADLAND
Focus Magazien
MAY 2014
The risk of cost overruns on the new bridge was hidden. Is the same thing happening with sewage treatment plans?
The risk of cost overruns on the new bridge was hidden. Is the same thing happening with sewage treatment plans?
CRD politicians’ attempt to ram a regional sewage treatment plant down the throat of the smallest municipality involved in the scheme proved to be an expensive political miscalculation. Esquimalt Council voted unanimously to push the project out of the municipality, and provincial Environment Minister Mary Polak made it clear she wouldn’t interfere on behalf of the CRD.
READ MORE: http://focusonline.ca/?q=node%
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014 04:25 PM
It is no surprise that a poll conducted by the Sewage Treatment Action Group produced results that do not appear to favour the Capital Regional District’s sewage-treatment plan. The surprise is that the group would use such a shoddy method to further its cause.
The group says its survey, conducted by phone on April 2 and April 9, shows the majority of respondents are concerned about the sewage plan, have lost confidence in the CRD and want an independent review of the plan.
Maybe, maybe not. The results did not come from a scientific poll aimed at gauging public opinion, but from a campaign aimed at eliciting a particular response. In the group’s own words, gleaned from its website, the telephone survey was conducted “to raise awareness about the limitations of secondary treatment.”
The survey was conducted not by a professional polling organization, but by Popular Change, a Victoria company that, according to its website, offers “experienced planning and managing both voter-driven and media-driven campaigns using modern techniques and project management.” That is not to fault the company — it was doing what it was hired to do — but it is disingenuous of the Sewage Treatment Action Group to try to portray the survey as a legitimate poll.
A poll should start from a neutral point, rather than trying to colour the responses with loaded questions. Yet the survey’s introduction tells respondents the call is on behalf of the organization that is “very concerned about the CRD sewage treatment project.”
The automated survey purports to ask “two quick questions because we are concerned that the CRD sewage project will continue to flush toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals into the ocean even after secondary treatment.”
“If you are concerned about the sewage project, press 2,” goes the dialogue. “If you are not concerned, press 3.”
The responses are useless, because “concerned” could mean almost anything. And pushing 3 ends the survey, leaving no room for further negative responses.
The so-called Question 2 asks respondents to respond to four statements with no opportunity for dissenting opinions: “If you think there should be an independent review of the CRD plan, press 1. If you believe we should take the time to develop an innovative plan, press 2. If you have lost confidence in the CRD’s ability to manage our region’s waste, press 3. To choose all of the above, press 4.”
It would have been useful had the survey asked: “Do you favour discharging sewage into the ocean? Do you favour land-based secondary treatment? Do you favour another option?”
Not all opponents of the CRD’s sewage plan want to see sewage dumped into the ocean. Some want the CRD to explore other options. Many favour land-based sewage treatment, but are concerned about the particular method planned for the region. Others favour secondary treatment, but don’t like where the CRD plans to build the components.
It’s a complex issue, not easily defined by “yes” or “no” answers to clear questions, but the sewage action group survey didn’t even provide that opportunity. The group claims to have science on its side, then weakens its own cause by using such a blatantly unscientific strategy.
Emotional reactions to the sewage issue are not irrelevant. Some people have a bad feeling about dumping sewage in the ocean. Others don’t like the idea of a sewage plant greeting visitors at the harbour entrance as they arrive by sea. And who can fault Esquimalt residents for being upset when they were faced with the prospect of having a biosolids plant built in their neighbourhood?
It’s a tangled, complicated issue but the action group’s sham poll, rather than clarifying anything, only muddies the waters.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-----------------
Sewage plan soundly rejected: poll
CINDY E. HARNETT
CINDY E. HARNETT
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 28, 2014
A new poll says those guiding the Capital Regional District’s $783-million sewage treatment plan are on a collision course with citizens.
The Sewage Treatment Action Group commissioned the poll, carried out by research company Popular Change. The poll found 76 per cent of 2,311 respondents from Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay are concerned about the sewage plan.
“These results clearly show that the mayors and councillors sitting on the CRD board from these three key municipalities are on a collision course with their citizens,” Richard Atwell, director of the Sewage Treatment Action Group, which opposes the CRD plan, said in a statement.
“Citizens have lost confidence in the CRD as the regional waste manager. Seventy per cent want to see an independent review and they want time taken to develop an innovative plan.”
Victoria Coun. Geoff Young, chairman of the CRD’s liquid waste management committee, said the poll questions were leading.
But he said the CRD and some municipalities are indeed on a collision course if the regional government can’t be allowed to make economic decisions about where the sites are going to be.
The current sewage treatment plan, which would see a plant built at McLoughlin Point in Esquimalt, evolved after estimates for a decentralized plan in 2009 were considered too expensive.
The options considered then were four sewage-treatment plants at a cost of about $1.2 billion, six plants for $1.6 billion and 11 plants for $2 billion.
Young said he took the job as chairman because he knew there was the potential for a lot of money to be spent wastefully, which he is striving to prevent.
“If there is going to be co-operation regionally, there has to be some way to reach agreement. And if we can’t, we have to go by majority rule,” Young said.
Representatives of Seaterra, the civilian commission overseeing the project, estimate that costs are mounting at a rate of $1 million every month the project is delayed.
Seaterra program director Albert Sweetnam denounced the poll results Sunday before they were released, saying the automated telephone poll contained loaded questions that were misleading and emotionally charged. He said they will lead to an inaccurate portrayal of public opinion.
“I made a firm commitment that we will correct any misinformation that's out there in the media,” Sweetnam said.
“This is complete misinformation, so I thought it needed to be addressed.”
The CRD has asked the province to intervene after Esquimalt council rejected the CRD’s bid to rezone a former oil tank farm at McLoughlin Point for a $230-million sewage treatment plant.
The site is zoned to allow wastewater treatment, but the CRD was seeking encroachments into a shoreline buffer and to increase the allowable height.
The rejection came after an extended public hearing that included more than 100 presentations.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
APRIL 28, 2014
A new poll says those guiding the Capital Regional District’s $783-million sewage treatment plan are on a collision course with citizens.
The Sewage Treatment Action Group commissioned the poll, carried out by research company Popular Change. The poll found 76 per cent of 2,311 respondents from Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay are concerned about the sewage plan.
“These results clearly show that the mayors and councillors sitting on the CRD board from these three key municipalities are on a collision course with their citizens,” Richard Atwell, director of the Sewage Treatment Action Group, which opposes the CRD plan, said in a statement.
“Citizens have lost confidence in the CRD as the regional waste manager. Seventy per cent want to see an independent review and they want time taken to develop an innovative plan.”
Victoria Coun. Geoff Young, chairman of the CRD’s liquid waste management committee, said the poll questions were leading.
But he said the CRD and some municipalities are indeed on a collision course if the regional government can’t be allowed to make economic decisions about where the sites are going to be.
The current sewage treatment plan, which would see a plant built at McLoughlin Point in Esquimalt, evolved after estimates for a decentralized plan in 2009 were considered too expensive.
The options considered then were four sewage-treatment plants at a cost of about $1.2 billion, six plants for $1.6 billion and 11 plants for $2 billion.
Young said he took the job as chairman because he knew there was the potential for a lot of money to be spent wastefully, which he is striving to prevent.
“If there is going to be co-operation regionally, there has to be some way to reach agreement. And if we can’t, we have to go by majority rule,” Young said.
Representatives of Seaterra, the civilian commission overseeing the project, estimate that costs are mounting at a rate of $1 million every month the project is delayed.
Seaterra program director Albert Sweetnam denounced the poll results Sunday before they were released, saying the automated telephone poll contained loaded questions that were misleading and emotionally charged. He said they will lead to an inaccurate portrayal of public opinion.
“I made a firm commitment that we will correct any misinformation that's out there in the media,” Sweetnam said.
“This is complete misinformation, so I thought it needed to be addressed.”
The CRD has asked the province to intervene after Esquimalt council rejected the CRD’s bid to rezone a former oil tank farm at McLoughlin Point for a $230-million sewage treatment plant.
The site is zoned to allow wastewater treatment, but the CRD was seeking encroachments into a shoreline buffer and to increase the allowable height.
The rejection came after an extended public hearing that included more than 100 presentations.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-----------------
Comment: Delays to Seaterra program cost all of us
ALBERT SWEETNAM
ALBERT SWEETNAM
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 29, 2014
Mayor Barb Desjardins of Esquimalt suggests that moving ahead with the wastewater treatment plan for the region’s core area is an unpopular decision.
Wastewater treatment is a difficult and complex issue, as is any regional issue of such environmental, social and economic importance. But I think we can all agree that we have been dumping raw sewage into our ocean for far too long. Now is the time to move ahead with wastewater treatment in the region’s core area.
Construction has already started under the Seaterra program to provide wastewater treatment for the core-area municipalities within four years. Many would say — including our neighbours to the south, our funding partners, environmental groups and many of our visiting tourists — it’s about time. The Capital Regional District has already implemented secondary treatment programs outside the core area on the Saanich Peninsula, Port Renfrew and on Saltspring Island.
As for how the core-area treatment program was developed, the CRD completed a comprehensive and lengthy planning process spanning many years and costing millions of dollars.
Since 2006, the CRD has considered, analyzed and evaluated the capital and operating costs for a variety of approaches to treatment and numerous siting options. The CRD directors who make up the core area liquid waste management committee made decisions to advance the plan for wastewater treatment with full information and in consideration of the collective interests of the region’s residents.
If we were to reimagine the Seaterra program as a decentralized system today, where would we be? We would have no funding commitments, years of planning ahead and federal regulation deadlines drawing nearer. A $500-million loss of funding is a big downside that would triple the costs to CRD core-area taxpayers — the existing funding commitments are based on the current, approved plan, not a reimagined decentralized approach.
The CRD board has already considered a decentralized approach with potential wastewater treatment plants at Haro Woods in Saanich, Westhills in Langford, Colwood city hall, Clover Point in Victoria and Windsor Park in Oak Bay, to name a few. Between 2006 and 2009, the CRD considered a decentralized approach that included up to 11 treatment plants. The capital and operating cost estimates for this approach are more than double the cost estimates for the current plan. The current, approved plan offers the best value for money.
Today, we have a plan for treatment that will provide the best and most current technology that reflects input from an expert North American peer-review team, qualified consultants, municipalities and community members. As Desjardins notes, the Seaterra program staff and consultants have implemented different types of wastewater treatment projects across North America successfully. These same experts have confirmed that a centralized wastewater treatment program is the best approach for the CRD.
While it hasn’t always been a smooth ride, the CRD has worked with the seven core municipalities throughout the planning process and during the implementation of the Seaterra program.
The CRD shifted sites for the proposed main wastewater treatment facility from Macaulay Point to McLoughlin Point at the suggestion of the township of Esquimalt and concerned residents in 2008.
Why, then, the sudden about-face by the township of Esquimalt against a site they suggested and subsequently zoned for a wastewater treatment plant? The township has been a part of the liquid waste management planning process since 2006, and as recently as July 2013 passed a rezoning bylaw in support of developing a wastewater treatment plant at McLoughlin Point.
The CRD has been moving forward with implementing a liquid-waste management plan supported by all the core area municipalities.
We don’t know the ultimate impact of Esquimalt’s April 7 decision not to rezone McLoughlin Point to allow for minor height and setback variances for the development of a wastewater treatment plant.
What we do know is that it will have financial, social and environmental impacts on the CRD’s core area taxpayers.
Every month we do not move forward with implementing the approved treatment program, we do not save money — we shirk our social and environmental responsibility and continue to dump raw sewage into the ocean.
The CRD’s Seaterra program is continuing to move ahead with construction and community engagement to ensure we meet our funding agreement deadlines, keep the program on budget and most importantly, bring wastewater treatment to our region sooner rather than later.
- Albert Sweetnam is director of the Seaterra program.
APRIL 29, 2014
Mayor Barb Desjardins of Esquimalt suggests that moving ahead with the wastewater treatment plan for the region’s core area is an unpopular decision.
Wastewater treatment is a difficult and complex issue, as is any regional issue of such environmental, social and economic importance. But I think we can all agree that we have been dumping raw sewage into our ocean for far too long. Now is the time to move ahead with wastewater treatment in the region’s core area.
Construction has already started under the Seaterra program to provide wastewater treatment for the core-area municipalities within four years. Many would say — including our neighbours to the south, our funding partners, environmental groups and many of our visiting tourists — it’s about time. The Capital Regional District has already implemented secondary treatment programs outside the core area on the Saanich Peninsula, Port Renfrew and on Saltspring Island.
As for how the core-area treatment program was developed, the CRD completed a comprehensive and lengthy planning process spanning many years and costing millions of dollars.
Since 2006, the CRD has considered, analyzed and evaluated the capital and operating costs for a variety of approaches to treatment and numerous siting options. The CRD directors who make up the core area liquid waste management committee made decisions to advance the plan for wastewater treatment with full information and in consideration of the collective interests of the region’s residents.
If we were to reimagine the Seaterra program as a decentralized system today, where would we be? We would have no funding commitments, years of planning ahead and federal regulation deadlines drawing nearer. A $500-million loss of funding is a big downside that would triple the costs to CRD core-area taxpayers — the existing funding commitments are based on the current, approved plan, not a reimagined decentralized approach.
The CRD board has already considered a decentralized approach with potential wastewater treatment plants at Haro Woods in Saanich, Westhills in Langford, Colwood city hall, Clover Point in Victoria and Windsor Park in Oak Bay, to name a few. Between 2006 and 2009, the CRD considered a decentralized approach that included up to 11 treatment plants. The capital and operating cost estimates for this approach are more than double the cost estimates for the current plan. The current, approved plan offers the best value for money.
Today, we have a plan for treatment that will provide the best and most current technology that reflects input from an expert North American peer-review team, qualified consultants, municipalities and community members. As Desjardins notes, the Seaterra program staff and consultants have implemented different types of wastewater treatment projects across North America successfully. These same experts have confirmed that a centralized wastewater treatment program is the best approach for the CRD.
While it hasn’t always been a smooth ride, the CRD has worked with the seven core municipalities throughout the planning process and during the implementation of the Seaterra program.
The CRD shifted sites for the proposed main wastewater treatment facility from Macaulay Point to McLoughlin Point at the suggestion of the township of Esquimalt and concerned residents in 2008.
Why, then, the sudden about-face by the township of Esquimalt against a site they suggested and subsequently zoned for a wastewater treatment plant? The township has been a part of the liquid waste management planning process since 2006, and as recently as July 2013 passed a rezoning bylaw in support of developing a wastewater treatment plant at McLoughlin Point.
The CRD has been moving forward with implementing a liquid-waste management plan supported by all the core area municipalities.
We don’t know the ultimate impact of Esquimalt’s April 7 decision not to rezone McLoughlin Point to allow for minor height and setback variances for the development of a wastewater treatment plant.
What we do know is that it will have financial, social and environmental impacts on the CRD’s core area taxpayers.
Every month we do not move forward with implementing the approved treatment program, we do not save money — we shirk our social and environmental responsibility and continue to dump raw sewage into the ocean.
The CRD’s Seaterra program is continuing to move ahead with construction and community engagement to ensure we meet our funding agreement deadlines, keep the program on budget and most importantly, bring wastewater treatment to our region sooner rather than later.
- Albert Sweetnam is director of the Seaterra program.
----------------
Comment: Did the CRD select the best sewage-treatment plan?
DR. SHAUN PECK (RSTV)
DR. SHAUN PECK (RSTV)
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014
A trio of University of Victoria mechanical and electrical engineers explain in their April 16 commentary that we need land-based sewage treatment because “there is too much uncertainty and thus too much risk for us not to take action … . No one really knows the fate of the contaminants that are continuously discharged into the Salish Sea.”
Should these be the reasons for the Capital Regional District to spend an estimated $783 million on land-based sewage treatment? Surely there should be measurable harm to the marine environment and a quantifiable benefit before spending this vast amount.
The current treatment works were designed by civil engineers and are accepted as practice by the World Bank for unique receiving environments. The unique situations are where sewage is assimilated into and treated naturally by the marine environment.
Victoria’s sewage (which is 99.9 per cent water) is screened to six millimetres and discharged through two deep-sea outfalls more than a kilometre from the shoreline and sixty metres below the ocean surface. At the end of the outfalls are 70-metre diffusers.
The CRD has a world-class source-control program that eliminates many substances (such as fats from food premises, mercury from dental offices and used pharmaceuticals).
The current preliminary treatment has been extensively monitored and studied by the CRD and reviewed by marine scientists. It has been shown to produce a minimal effect on the ocean floor.
There is no question that there are uncertainties about the fate of the chemicals of concern and even micro-plastics. However, just because substances can be detected (and with today’s scientific instruments they can be detected in minute amounts — parts per trillion or quadrillion) does not mean there has been an effect at very low levels.
When a substance is detected, there is, however, a perception of an effect that might not have been determined.
The credible judgment of marine scientists, public-health officials and engineers that the current discharge of the screened effluent into a unique marine receiving environment is highly effective has largely been ignored. Nine of the 10 marine scientists are from the University of Victoria. Have the mechanical and electrical engineers reviewed their judgments and recommendations?
Here are some questions that should be answered before spending more on land-based sewage treatment for Victoria.
• What are the current or potential problems with wastewater and other discharges into the local marine environment?
• How serious are these problems?
• What are the major sources of the problems?
• Will a proposed remedy eliminate or even reduce the problems without creating bigger impacts?
• Are there better solutions than the ones proposed?
• Is addressing the problems a high priority for marine environmental protection?
The mechanical and electrical engineers make no mention of the environmental impacts of land-based sewage treatment plants. These plants and their connecting pipes will have an effect on the land and global environments.
The treatment process increases the solid matter and produces sludge that then has to be disposed of by an undetermined means. Hundreds of tonnes of concrete will be used. Concrete is made with cement, and producing one tonne of cement produces one tonne of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change.
It was estimated by consultants to the CRD that building the proposed land-based sewage treatment plants will produce 15,516 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, or greenhouse gases. During operation, the carbon dioxide emissions are estimated at 7,917 tonnes per year.
If the overall environment is considered — marine, land and global — there will be more harm than the minimal contamination from the current practice of discharging the preliminary treated sewage into the marine environment.
There is currently a political impasse — Esquimalt council has refused to rezone the McLoughlin Point site for a sewage-treatment plant. The B.C. government has declined to be involved. This presents an opportunity to rethink the whole project and to take notice of the science that supports the present practice.
The CRD needs to challenge the federal wastewater systems effluent regulations and the provincial environment minister’s 2006 order to develop a sewage-treatment plan. The challenge should be based on the vast amount of evidence that is available from UVic marine scientists and the judgment of public-health officials.
- Dr. Shaun Peck was the medical health officer for the CRD from 1989 to 1995.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
APRIL 30, 2014
A trio of University of Victoria mechanical and electrical engineers explain in their April 16 commentary that we need land-based sewage treatment because “there is too much uncertainty and thus too much risk for us not to take action … . No one really knows the fate of the contaminants that are continuously discharged into the Salish Sea.”
Should these be the reasons for the Capital Regional District to spend an estimated $783 million on land-based sewage treatment? Surely there should be measurable harm to the marine environment and a quantifiable benefit before spending this vast amount.
The current treatment works were designed by civil engineers and are accepted as practice by the World Bank for unique receiving environments. The unique situations are where sewage is assimilated into and treated naturally by the marine environment.
Victoria’s sewage (which is 99.9 per cent water) is screened to six millimetres and discharged through two deep-sea outfalls more than a kilometre from the shoreline and sixty metres below the ocean surface. At the end of the outfalls are 70-metre diffusers.
The CRD has a world-class source-control program that eliminates many substances (such as fats from food premises, mercury from dental offices and used pharmaceuticals).
The current preliminary treatment has been extensively monitored and studied by the CRD and reviewed by marine scientists. It has been shown to produce a minimal effect on the ocean floor.
There is no question that there are uncertainties about the fate of the chemicals of concern and even micro-plastics. However, just because substances can be detected (and with today’s scientific instruments they can be detected in minute amounts — parts per trillion or quadrillion) does not mean there has been an effect at very low levels.
When a substance is detected, there is, however, a perception of an effect that might not have been determined.
The credible judgment of marine scientists, public-health officials and engineers that the current discharge of the screened effluent into a unique marine receiving environment is highly effective has largely been ignored. Nine of the 10 marine scientists are from the University of Victoria. Have the mechanical and electrical engineers reviewed their judgments and recommendations?
Here are some questions that should be answered before spending more on land-based sewage treatment for Victoria.
• What are the current or potential problems with wastewater and other discharges into the local marine environment?
• How serious are these problems?
• What are the major sources of the problems?
• Will a proposed remedy eliminate or even reduce the problems without creating bigger impacts?
• Are there better solutions than the ones proposed?
• Is addressing the problems a high priority for marine environmental protection?
The mechanical and electrical engineers make no mention of the environmental impacts of land-based sewage treatment plants. These plants and their connecting pipes will have an effect on the land and global environments.
The treatment process increases the solid matter and produces sludge that then has to be disposed of by an undetermined means. Hundreds of tonnes of concrete will be used. Concrete is made with cement, and producing one tonne of cement produces one tonne of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change.
It was estimated by consultants to the CRD that building the proposed land-based sewage treatment plants will produce 15,516 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, or greenhouse gases. During operation, the carbon dioxide emissions are estimated at 7,917 tonnes per year.
If the overall environment is considered — marine, land and global — there will be more harm than the minimal contamination from the current practice of discharging the preliminary treated sewage into the marine environment.
There is currently a political impasse — Esquimalt council has refused to rezone the McLoughlin Point site for a sewage-treatment plant. The B.C. government has declined to be involved. This presents an opportunity to rethink the whole project and to take notice of the science that supports the present practice.
The CRD needs to challenge the federal wastewater systems effluent regulations and the provincial environment minister’s 2006 order to develop a sewage-treatment plan. The challenge should be based on the vast amount of evidence that is available from UVic marine scientists and the judgment of public-health officials.
- Dr. Shaun Peck was the medical health officer for the CRD from 1989 to 1995.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
--------------
Editorial: Bogus survey muddles issue
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014 04:25 PM
It is no surprise that a poll conducted by the Sewage Treatment Action Group produced results that do not appear to favour the Capital Regional District’s sewage-treatment plan. The surprise is that the group would use such a shoddy method to further its cause.
The group says its survey, conducted by phone on April 2 and April 9, shows the majority of respondents are concerned about the sewage plan, have lost confidence in the CRD and want an independent review of the plan.
Maybe, maybe not. The results did not come from a scientific poll aimed at gauging public opinion, but from a campaign aimed at eliciting a particular response. In the group’s own words, gleaned from its website, the telephone survey was conducted “to raise awareness about the limitations of secondary treatment.”
The survey was conducted not by a professional polling organization, but by Popular Change, a Victoria company that, according to its website, offers “experienced planning and managing both voter-driven and media-driven campaigns using modern techniques and project management.” That is not to fault the company — it was doing what it was hired to do — but it is disingenuous of the Sewage Treatment Action Group to try to portray the survey as a legitimate poll.
A poll should start from a neutral point, rather than trying to colour the responses with loaded questions. Yet the survey’s introduction tells respondents the call is on behalf of the organization that is “very concerned about the CRD sewage treatment project.”
The automated survey purports to ask “two quick questions because we are concerned that the CRD sewage project will continue to flush toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals into the ocean even after secondary treatment.”
“If you are concerned about the sewage project, press 2,” goes the dialogue. “If you are not concerned, press 3.”
The responses are useless, because “concerned” could mean almost anything. And pushing 3 ends the survey, leaving no room for further negative responses.
The so-called Question 2 asks respondents to respond to four statements with no opportunity for dissenting opinions: “If you think there should be an independent review of the CRD plan, press 1. If you believe we should take the time to develop an innovative plan, press 2. If you have lost confidence in the CRD’s ability to manage our region’s waste, press 3. To choose all of the above, press 4.”
It would have been useful had the survey asked: “Do you favour discharging sewage into the ocean? Do you favour land-based secondary treatment? Do you favour another option?”
Not all opponents of the CRD’s sewage plan want to see sewage dumped into the ocean. Some want the CRD to explore other options. Many favour land-based sewage treatment, but are concerned about the particular method planned for the region. Others favour secondary treatment, but don’t like where the CRD plans to build the components.
It’s a complex issue, not easily defined by “yes” or “no” answers to clear questions, but the sewage action group survey didn’t even provide that opportunity. The group claims to have science on its side, then weakens its own cause by using such a blatantly unscientific strategy.
Emotional reactions to the sewage issue are not irrelevant. Some people have a bad feeling about dumping sewage in the ocean. Others don’t like the idea of a sewage plant greeting visitors at the harbour entrance as they arrive by sea. And who can fault Esquimalt residents for being upset when they were faced with the prospect of having a biosolids plant built in their neighbourhood?
It’s a tangled, complicated issue but the action group’s sham poll, rather than clarifying anything, only muddies the waters.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
------------------
Raeside sewage poll cartoon
Sewage project 'political travesty,' says UVic prof
Daniel Palmer
Daniel Palmer
Victoria News
Apr 30, 2014
The Capital Regional District's sewage treatment project is a classic case of political optics over evidence-based policy, says a University of Victoria professor.
In her paper published in Public Sector Digest this month, public administration associate professor Rebecca Warburton calls the Seaterra project a "political travesty" and argues the current disposal method of marine outfalls causes much less negative environmental impact than land-based treatment.
"This is a very flawed public policy process," said Warburton, a health economist openly associated with Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria, an advocacy group opposed to additional sewage treatment in the region.
"If the CRD wants to claim this secondary treatment project is the most cost-effective and environmentally safe option, where is their cost-benefit analysis to prove it," she said.
Warburton said many in the scientific and academic communities are frustrated by CRD directors who continue to argue that federal and provincial regulations are forcing their hand.
The CRD's current disposal method of screened raw sewage to marine outfalls has been categorized as high-risk under federal guidelines, stipulating a compliance date of 2020. Some CRD directors like Saanich Coun. Vic Derman have argued the CRD should work to get its sewage effluent recategorized as low-risk, pushing the compliance date to 2040 and allowing the CRD more time to come up with a more sustainable and cost-effective plan.
"The CRD monitors those marine outfalls carefully, and we have one of the best source control programs in Canada," Warburton said. "Toxic chemicals and metals are kept out of our drains and are properly disposed of. All we really know is there will be minimal positive benefit to the marine environment, but massive negative effects if we move sewage treatment on land."
In 2006, the CRD commissioned the SETAC report, a technical review of regional land-based sewage treatment. The authors concluded that while there is a tremendous amount of scientific data, the benefits of sewage treatment couldn't be calculated with any precision. The authors argued public will should dictate the final treatment measures.
Last month, Esquimalt rejected a wastewater treatment plant at McLoughlin Point due to overwhelming public opposition, prompting the CRD to ask Environment Minister Mary Polak to intervene and force through rezoning. Polak declined.
Seaterra project director Albert Sweetnam maintains the project is within its $783-million budget, but is at risk of running behind schedule after Esquimalt's latest decision.
Apr 30, 2014
The Capital Regional District's sewage treatment project is a classic case of political optics over evidence-based policy, says a University of Victoria professor.
In her paper published in Public Sector Digest this month, public administration associate professor Rebecca Warburton calls the Seaterra project a "political travesty" and argues the current disposal method of marine outfalls causes much less negative environmental impact than land-based treatment.
"This is a very flawed public policy process," said Warburton, a health economist openly associated with Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria, an advocacy group opposed to additional sewage treatment in the region.
"If the CRD wants to claim this secondary treatment project is the most cost-effective and environmentally safe option, where is their cost-benefit analysis to prove it," she said.
Warburton said many in the scientific and academic communities are frustrated by CRD directors who continue to argue that federal and provincial regulations are forcing their hand.
The CRD's current disposal method of screened raw sewage to marine outfalls has been categorized as high-risk under federal guidelines, stipulating a compliance date of 2020. Some CRD directors like Saanich Coun. Vic Derman have argued the CRD should work to get its sewage effluent recategorized as low-risk, pushing the compliance date to 2040 and allowing the CRD more time to come up with a more sustainable and cost-effective plan.
"The CRD monitors those marine outfalls carefully, and we have one of the best source control programs in Canada," Warburton said. "Toxic chemicals and metals are kept out of our drains and are properly disposed of. All we really know is there will be minimal positive benefit to the marine environment, but massive negative effects if we move sewage treatment on land."
In 2006, the CRD commissioned the SETAC report, a technical review of regional land-based sewage treatment. The authors concluded that while there is a tremendous amount of scientific data, the benefits of sewage treatment couldn't be calculated with any precision. The authors argued public will should dictate the final treatment measures.
Last month, Esquimalt rejected a wastewater treatment plant at McLoughlin Point due to overwhelming public opposition, prompting the CRD to ask Environment Minister Mary Polak to intervene and force through rezoning. Polak declined.
Seaterra project director Albert Sweetnam maintains the project is within its $783-million budget, but is at risk of running behind schedule after Esquimalt's latest decision.
----------------
Songhees First Nation seeks full membership on capital regional board
Bill Cleverley
Bill Cleverley
Times Colonist
May 1, 2014
- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/
Excerpt of Songhees Chief Ron Sam comment about CRD sewage plan:
Sam said the Songhees Nation is expected to pay its share of mega-projects such as sewage treatment while being left out of decision-making.
“Our capital contribution [for sewage treatment] is expected to be $3.25 million with annual contributions of $418,000 toward the operating costs. This was a decision that was made by this board without any input from the Songhees Nation,” Sam told CRD directors.
“While it is important to pay for your full share as a part of the team, it is another to be told what the costs are without being involved in the final decision. … The current process is not working, as being told what your costs are does not signal any government-to-government discussion to me.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/
May 1, 2014
- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/
Excerpt of Songhees Chief Ron Sam comment about CRD sewage plan:
Sam said the Songhees Nation is expected to pay its share of mega-projects such as sewage treatment while being left out of decision-making.
“Our capital contribution [for sewage treatment] is expected to be $3.25 million with annual contributions of $418,000 toward the operating costs. This was a decision that was made by this board without any input from the Songhees Nation,” Sam told CRD directors.
“While it is important to pay for your full share as a part of the team, it is another to be told what the costs are without being involved in the final decision. … The current process is not working, as being told what your costs are does not signal any government-to-government discussion to me.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/
----------------
CRD chairman invites minister to board’s sewage-plant parley
BILL CLEVERLEY
TIMES COLONIST
MAY 1, 2014
BILL CLEVERLEY
TIMES COLONIST
MAY 1, 2014
With the clock ticking loudly, Capital Regional District chairman Alastair Bryson has invited Environment Minister Mary Polak to attend a CRD board meeting to outline whether she will break the impasse over locating a sewage treatment plant at Esquimalt’s McLoughlin Point.
Read more here: http://www.
Esquimalt mayor refutes CRD’s claim of ‘victimhood’, says impasse is the result of poor decisions
John Farquharson
Open Victoria
May 2, 2014
As noted here in a previous post, “A tsunami of ‘victim language’ engulfed the CRD’s deliberations on how to respond to Esquimalt Council’s April 7th rejection of its sewage treatment facility application.” The same language then made its way into the CRD’s April 10th letter the the Minister of Environment
Here are some examples: “Esquimalt is entirely to blame for the current ‘impasse’ and has place[d] the CRD in the position of …having only 3 options: Proceed with construction in defiance of Esquimalt’s bylaw; abandon the project and place the CRD..in jeopardy of being prosecuted under the Environmental Management Act; abandon the McLoughlin Point site and engage in a multi-year search for an alternative and thereby not meet..critical dates in the agreements”.
READ MORE HERE: http://openvictoria.ca/
---------------
Esquimalt mayor refutes CRD’s claim of ‘victimhood’, says impasse is the result of poor decisions
John Farquharson
Open Victoria
May 2, 2014
As noted here in a previous post, “A tsunami of ‘victim language’ engulfed the CRD’s deliberations on how to respond to Esquimalt Council’s April 7th rejection of its sewage treatment facility application.” The same language then made its way into the CRD’s April 10th letter the the Minister of Environment
Here are some examples: “Esquimalt is entirely to blame for the current ‘impasse’ and has place[d] the CRD in the position of …having only 3 options: Proceed with construction in defiance of Esquimalt’s bylaw; abandon the project and place the CRD..in jeopardy of being prosecuted under the Environmental Management Act; abandon the McLoughlin Point site and engage in a multi-year search for an alternative and thereby not meet..critical dates in the agreements”.
READ MORE HERE: http://openvictoria.ca/
--------------
Comment: Why we cheered when Esquimalt said no
MEAGAN KLAASSEN
MEAGAN KLAASSEN
TIMES COLONIST
MAY 4, 2014
In the ongoing Greater Victoria sewage saga, there have been few opportunities for the wider community to hear from average citizens who are being asked to host the region’s treatment in their neighbourhood.
Seaterra has a significant PR budget and can easily tell their story, but it is equally important to hear the experiences of those who live in places such the Westbay, Saxe Point, Macaulay Point and other Esquimalt residential neighbourhoods near McLoughlin Point.
In the beginning, those of us who support sewage treatment (and we are the majority) were happy we would finally stop fouling our environment with our raw sewage. When residents and council put forward McLoughlin Point as the location of one of several modern plants in the Greater Victoria area, we felt we were part of a regional solution.
This changed abruptly about four years ago when the Capital Regional District unilaterally made the decision to build just one large traditional secondary sewage plant for the entire region’s waste on our small waterfront lot. Our feelings on this major change were not surprising — not only would we get a huge plant in our neighbourhood, but the CRD never bothered to ask us if that was OK.
Since that time, residents and our elected officials have tried to tell the CRD why this size and type of plant is not appropriate next to a residential neighbourhood at the entrance to our harbour, but the odds haven’t favoured our community.
Esquimalt has only one representative at the CRD, which means we are always outvoted. Sewage committee meetings are held during the day, which makes it difficult for working citizens to attend to express their concerns. Those who do speak have to face a little machine with three lights that go from green to yellow to red to make sure they only speak for the allotted three minutes. It isn’t a friendly place.
Attending one of the few CRD open houses held in the municipality was disheartening. Even when citizens resorted to protest tactics, the communication usually flowed only one way.
Add to this the repeated public threats directed to Esquimalt that we have no choices, since the CRD will ask the province to make us do whatever it wants anyway, and the warning that anyone who disagrees with doing this plan this way is wasting a lot of everyone else’s tax dollars. That second warning is so you know who to blame when the cost overruns start to mount.
The result of this dysfunctional process is what you see today: a stalled megaproject with virtually no local public support. Those of us who became involved because we cared about our neighbourhood have looked deeply into the entire project and have found bigger and more fundamental problems that are now being brought out into the open.
Esquimalt’s recent decision to refuse rezoning has been heavily criticized by other CRD board members as being detrimental to the good of the region. This is an old tune; it is not a coincidence that those with the least power and prestige are usually the ones that are asked to “take it for the team.”
Esquimalt is one of the most mixed residential areas in the capital region, with million-dollar houses down the street from low-cost rentals. It has beautiful hidden beaches, neighbourhoods filled with gardens, a wonderful walkable core. It has the industriousness of the dockyards and navy base, and a good mix of families, students and seniors. The small size of the district means that people know one another, and we take care of each other.
We are proud of our municipality, and after years of being ignored, outvoted, threatened, devalued and frankly, dumped on, we were finally asked at the 11th hour to officially rezone. We hope you understand why we cheered when council said no.
Meagan Klaassen of Esquimalt is co-chair of the Lyall Street Action Committee, a residents’ associations advocating for people directly affected by the sewage project.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
MAY 4, 2014
In the ongoing Greater Victoria sewage saga, there have been few opportunities for the wider community to hear from average citizens who are being asked to host the region’s treatment in their neighbourhood.
Seaterra has a significant PR budget and can easily tell their story, but it is equally important to hear the experiences of those who live in places such the Westbay, Saxe Point, Macaulay Point and other Esquimalt residential neighbourhoods near McLoughlin Point.
In the beginning, those of us who support sewage treatment (and we are the majority) were happy we would finally stop fouling our environment with our raw sewage. When residents and council put forward McLoughlin Point as the location of one of several modern plants in the Greater Victoria area, we felt we were part of a regional solution.
This changed abruptly about four years ago when the Capital Regional District unilaterally made the decision to build just one large traditional secondary sewage plant for the entire region’s waste on our small waterfront lot. Our feelings on this major change were not surprising — not only would we get a huge plant in our neighbourhood, but the CRD never bothered to ask us if that was OK.
Since that time, residents and our elected officials have tried to tell the CRD why this size and type of plant is not appropriate next to a residential neighbourhood at the entrance to our harbour, but the odds haven’t favoured our community.
Esquimalt has only one representative at the CRD, which means we are always outvoted. Sewage committee meetings are held during the day, which makes it difficult for working citizens to attend to express their concerns. Those who do speak have to face a little machine with three lights that go from green to yellow to red to make sure they only speak for the allotted three minutes. It isn’t a friendly place.
Attending one of the few CRD open houses held in the municipality was disheartening. Even when citizens resorted to protest tactics, the communication usually flowed only one way.
Add to this the repeated public threats directed to Esquimalt that we have no choices, since the CRD will ask the province to make us do whatever it wants anyway, and the warning that anyone who disagrees with doing this plan this way is wasting a lot of everyone else’s tax dollars. That second warning is so you know who to blame when the cost overruns start to mount.
The result of this dysfunctional process is what you see today: a stalled megaproject with virtually no local public support. Those of us who became involved because we cared about our neighbourhood have looked deeply into the entire project and have found bigger and more fundamental problems that are now being brought out into the open.
Esquimalt’s recent decision to refuse rezoning has been heavily criticized by other CRD board members as being detrimental to the good of the region. This is an old tune; it is not a coincidence that those with the least power and prestige are usually the ones that are asked to “take it for the team.”
Esquimalt is one of the most mixed residential areas in the capital region, with million-dollar houses down the street from low-cost rentals. It has beautiful hidden beaches, neighbourhoods filled with gardens, a wonderful walkable core. It has the industriousness of the dockyards and navy base, and a good mix of families, students and seniors. The small size of the district means that people know one another, and we take care of each other.
We are proud of our municipality, and after years of being ignored, outvoted, threatened, devalued and frankly, dumped on, we were finally asked at the 11th hour to officially rezone. We hope you understand why we cheered when council said no.
Meagan Klaassen of Esquimalt is co-chair of the Lyall Street Action Committee, a residents’ associations advocating for people directly affected by the sewage project.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
----------------
LETTERS
Sewage-treatment plan needs to be revisited (Boyd)
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014
Re: “Delays to Seaterra program cost all of us,” April 29.
Despite a democratic process, Seaterra is indicating, ignore the results, move on with the sewage plant. They feel recent process has not adequately determined the desires of the public.
We believe it is more an awakening throughout the region that the Capital Regional District proposal and process are extremely short-sighted and in need of significant change.
A main reason used for having the current proposal still go ahead is cost overrun. While that’s a valid concern, blame lies entirely with the CRD board. The overruns result from attempts to impose continually evolving plans on an inadequate footprint.
There are too many reasons why this project has gone off the rails for discussion here. Suffice it to say, the CRD could never sell an equivalent pig-in-lipstick plan to any other CRD jurisdiction.
The process has been in direct contrast to a normal project rollout, where a complete list of long-term requirements — realize cost-recovery potential, plan for future growth, ensure minimal tourism impact — are specified and defined. This would lead to a design phase, the results of which would then be used to identify potential sites.
The CRD needs to revisit the entire project and process, toward achieving a more considered solution, one that benefits all stakeholders far into the future.
Mike Boyd
Victoria
http://www.timescolonist.com/
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014
Re: “Delays to Seaterra program cost all of us,” April 29.
Despite a democratic process, Seaterra is indicating, ignore the results, move on with the sewage plant. They feel recent process has not adequately determined the desires of the public.
We believe it is more an awakening throughout the region that the Capital Regional District proposal and process are extremely short-sighted and in need of significant change.
A main reason used for having the current proposal still go ahead is cost overrun. While that’s a valid concern, blame lies entirely with the CRD board. The overruns result from attempts to impose continually evolving plans on an inadequate footprint.
There are too many reasons why this project has gone off the rails for discussion here. Suffice it to say, the CRD could never sell an equivalent pig-in-lipstick plan to any other CRD jurisdiction.
The process has been in direct contrast to a normal project rollout, where a complete list of long-term requirements — realize cost-recovery potential, plan for future growth, ensure minimal tourism impact — are specified and defined. This would lead to a design phase, the results of which would then be used to identify potential sites.
The CRD needs to revisit the entire project and process, toward achieving a more considered solution, one that benefits all stakeholders far into the future.
Mike Boyd
Victoria
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-------------
Sewage-treatment ball is in the CRD’s court (Burton-Krahn)
http://www.timescolonist.com/
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-------------
Survey first opportunity to comment on project (Carter)
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-----------
Survey first opportunity to comment on project (Carter)
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-----------
Take a second look at sewage treatment (Devitt)
TIMES COLONIST
MAY 2, 2014
Re: “Bogus survey muddles issue,” editorial, April 30.
The editorial has muddied the water even more.
The scientists and health people that say the status quo is best make a good point based on years of observations, but it is a one-sided look at waste management. The political directive that says secondary treatment by 2020 is a given also takes a one-sided look. The Capital Regional District is now in a “circle-the-wagons” mode, seeing everyone as the enemy.
And then there are concerned citizens. many of whom are knowledgeable and experienced volunteers, who have done their homework, who say we should get to tertiary treatment for local environmental reasons and combine the waste management streams for energy recovery, economic offsets and global environmental reasons.
We need to be looking at a longer-term future than we are, because whatever is done now will set the course. It’s never too late to take a second look to confirm the best long-term path. Unfortunately, the public consultation process in this exercise has been seriously flawed by the politics of the issue. We need now to get all sides working together. When communities work together, we can do infinitely more than can be possibly imagined.
Sure, there will be a delay, but with appropriate deadlines, we have time to make the 2020 deadline. We might just get things right in the process and it will have the necessary support.
Bruce Devitt
Esquimalt
http://www.timescolonist.com/
TIMES COLONIST
MAY 2, 2014
Re: “Bogus survey muddles issue,” editorial, April 30.
The editorial has muddied the water even more.
The scientists and health people that say the status quo is best make a good point based on years of observations, but it is a one-sided look at waste management. The political directive that says secondary treatment by 2020 is a given also takes a one-sided look. The Capital Regional District is now in a “circle-the-wagons” mode, seeing everyone as the enemy.
And then there are concerned citizens. many of whom are knowledgeable and experienced volunteers, who have done their homework, who say we should get to tertiary treatment for local environmental reasons and combine the waste management streams for energy recovery, economic offsets and global environmental reasons.
We need to be looking at a longer-term future than we are, because whatever is done now will set the course. It’s never too late to take a second look to confirm the best long-term path. Unfortunately, the public consultation process in this exercise has been seriously flawed by the politics of the issue. We need now to get all sides working together. When communities work together, we can do infinitely more than can be possibly imagined.
Sure, there will be a delay, but with appropriate deadlines, we have time to make the 2020 deadline. We might just get things right in the process and it will have the necessary support.
Bruce Devitt
Esquimalt
http://www.timescolonist.com/
---------------
Breaking down democracy one meeting at a time (Dickson)
Focus Magazine
May 2014
Thank-you for covering the sewage saga, aka Sewage Circus. David Broadland’s comments on how Mr Kalynchuk and Stantec have directed the entire process, while keeping the CALWM committee directors in the dark, is right on the money. My community was in for the fight of a lifetime to prove Mr Kalynchuk wrong when he told us that Haro Woods was the only site for the sewage plant in spite of the backlash from the public and environmental concerns.
I had no idea that getting involved with the process, trying to keep our local concerns of the flawed process on the radar, would dominate my life for eight years. Things were off the track and our elected officials were being railroaded, along with taxpayers.
Mr Broadland’s article prompted me to reread the journals of minutes I kept from every CALWM meeting since 2007. The pattern of manipulation of information jumps out from the pages. Reading the Focus article brought back many memories of the seven-year battle to save Haro Woods from the CRD’s plan and expose the corruption and manipulation of the process—which has been anything but transparent. The entire process continues to move ahead with total disregard for the will of the people and there is still no meaningful consultation.
Thanks for finally getting the story straight and for proving investigative journalism is not dead. I continue to have faith that the corruption that has taken over our regional sewage project will come to an abrupt halt, the politicians will wake up, and the residents of the Capital Regional District will finally get a project that we can afford that will take us safely into the 21st century. Taxpayers can no longer afford to float a bad plan that leaves the region financially bankrupt with nothing to show for the millions spent to date.
D. M. Dickson, Friend of Haro Woods
http://focusonline.ca/?q=node%
Thank-you for covering the sewage saga, aka Sewage Circus. David Broadland’s comments on how Mr Kalynchuk and Stantec have directed the entire process, while keeping the CALWM committee directors in the dark, is right on the money. My community was in for the fight of a lifetime to prove Mr Kalynchuk wrong when he told us that Haro Woods was the only site for the sewage plant in spite of the backlash from the public and environmental concerns.
I had no idea that getting involved with the process, trying to keep our local concerns of the flawed process on the radar, would dominate my life for eight years. Things were off the track and our elected officials were being railroaded, along with taxpayers.
Mr Broadland’s article prompted me to reread the journals of minutes I kept from every CALWM meeting since 2007. The pattern of manipulation of information jumps out from the pages. Reading the Focus article brought back many memories of the seven-year battle to save Haro Woods from the CRD’s plan and expose the corruption and manipulation of the process—which has been anything but transparent. The entire process continues to move ahead with total disregard for the will of the people and there is still no meaningful consultation.
Thanks for finally getting the story straight and for proving investigative journalism is not dead. I continue to have faith that the corruption that has taken over our regional sewage project will come to an abrupt halt, the politicians will wake up, and the residents of the Capital Regional District will finally get a project that we can afford that will take us safely into the 21st century. Taxpayers can no longer afford to float a bad plan that leaves the region financially bankrupt with nothing to show for the millions spent to date.
D. M. Dickson, Friend of Haro Woods
http://focusonline.ca/?q=node%
--------------
Don’t vote for those who favour sewage plan (Foord)
http://www.timescolonist.com/
--------------
Alternate sewage plan would create more jobs (Maler)
TIMES COLONIST
APRIL 30, 2014
Re: “Province must act on sewage-treatment project,” April 25.
The point of the article written by the CEO of the Vancouver Island Construction Association is that local jobs will be lost if the province does not overrule the democratic decision by Esquimalt council not to allow rezoning of McLoughlin Point. The association, of course, has a vested interest.
At the risk of stating the obvious, two out of the three front-running proponents pushing to build this billion-dollar boondoggle are French multinationals and only they would be able to decide who in the local economy gets any jobs.
Furthermore, if an alternate decision was made to build 10 or so decentralized smaller, tertiary treatment plants, more local construction jobs would be created, because smaller local companies would be able to compete, so the construction association would have nothing to worry about.
Tom Maler
Victoria
http://www.timescolonist.com/
-------------------
Scrap the project, save a billion (Le Noury)
http://www.timescolonist.com/
http://www.timescolonist.com/
------------
Survey showed unease with sewage project (Spencer)
------------------
Sewage project pushed for political reasons (Trueman)
----------------
SEND IN YOUR LETTERS!
