Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria

I was extremely surprised at finding the article about this sewage problem that Victoria has. I am even more surprised that the Olympics is hosting so close by with this problem. My questions is why aren't they using septic tanks if they don't want a sewage treatment plant. If it's because they live to close together, then the answer is simple, you need a sewage treatment plant.
Would the people of Victoria actually go out in the bay and scoop the water out next to the sewage outlets, filter off the salt and then drink it? That is the question. Do you see these people out swimming in this area like fish and other sea based mammals? We aren't talking about a few families here, we're talking about 300,000 people. They should think about how they would feel if they ate some of the fish that came from that area and what they are putting in their bodies, or maybe they have and this is the problem, they don't think correctly anymore. It's amazing how they think it's all right for the rest of us, those who pay each year for our home town sewage systems.

As a lifetime resident of Victoria, having grown up in James Bay and now living in Fairfield, I can well remember the state of the beaches around Victoria in the 50's and 60's, before the extension of the outfalls and improvements to screening. Excrement in the water was common - driving along Ross Bay in a windstorm left a gooey 'film' on your car that was part salt, part yuck. The beaches were filthy (also in part because of the garbage dumped offshore) and littered with the junk flushed down toilets. In comparison, the beaches today are pristine, the aquatic life is flourishing, fishing is good right off the shore, and the water clean (and still damned cold). I wonder if any of the CRD/BC government boffins have ever fished the Victoria basin, particularly between the shore and Constance Bank. It's not for nothing that so much garbage got dumped out there - the currents/tides are so powerful that anything dumped overboard at a distance from shore is disbursed out to sea in a heartbeat. The currents are so strong that while fishing for halibut on the bank, you can easily drift to Trial island if you are not careful. These are the currents that sweep, dilute and disburse the (99% liquid) screened sewage today. A better system for this has not been invented, nor will it ever be, as no land-based system could ever approach the effect of untold billions of cubic feet of very cold water taking hold of the effluent and swirling it out to sea. The CRD is dead right in its program of controlling the source of the effluent. This is easy, cost effective, and zeroes in on the contaminants before they are dumped into the system. By all means continue to improve the current system and its infrastructure. Make all effort to separate the waste streams at source. If we do this, a land-based system will seem a very silly solution in not too many years. Either that or we will remember, to our regret, the truth in the saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Jan. 8, 2010

Letters to the Editor
Times Colonist

Congratulation to the BC Government for persuading Oak Bay to fix its antiquated sewers. During rain storms, Upland’s raw sewage soon can find its way into the CRD’s environmentally friendly long outfall system, instead of overflowing onto our beaches.

Has Uplands, been the source of the region’s “Mr. Floatie”? Wasn’t Mr. Floatie (and tourists’ righteous indignation), the main reason the BC Government required a new CRD sewage treatment system? So with the “Mr. Floatie” problem solved, can we now avoid the environmental damage scientists say the “required” CRD sewage treatment system will cause?

And can the BC Government’s financial share of the “required” CRD sewage treatment system project, now be redirected to other pressing provincial responsibilities: social housing, mental health services, transportation, parks and economic development for starters?

Doug Koch, Victoria

PS
And how about using some of the BC Government’s grant money saved, to showcase the CRD’s current screening/long outfall system as an environmentally friendly model of progressive Triple Bottom Line thinking?

THIS IS NOT THE STONE AGE VICTORIA DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR WATERS AND SEA LIFE PAT SANDWITH LEAD OPERATER ROCHE HARBOR WASTE WATER PLANT

Editors Comment: To Pat Sandwith - Your perceptions are appreciated but I hope you will also appreciate that when you look at the content we have posted on this web site that you will realise that the current deep sea outfalls (2 KM - about 1 1/2 miles from shore) 60 Meters (about 200 feet) below the ocean surface are highly effective in ensuring public health is protected and that there is a minimal impact on the environment. Those of us involved with RSTV question the need to spend $1.2 Billion CDN when the effect of the land based treatment on the total environment (chemical residues, sludge, energy use etc) may in fact be more than the present practice.

New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, Volume 12, Number 4, pp341-346, 2002, special issue editors, Richard Clapp and Laura Orlando

SEWERS, SEWAGE TREATMENT, SLUDGE:
DAMAGE WITHOUT END
ABBY A. ROCKEFELLER

ABSTRACT
It is in the nature of sewering and sewage treatment to compound environmental problems in the process of moving sewage and in attempting to remove from sewage the pollutants it carries. Spreading sewage sludge on land is but the latest in the compounding of environmental damage from sewerage. This practice must be banned and there must be a federal reorientation of all technology dealing with human excreta and the waste materials from industry and society that now are carried away by sewers. The reorientation must center on biologically based on-site pollution prevention and resource recycling technologies mandated through a revised Clean Water Act.

For pdf of full article, go to: http://www.riles.org/Rockefeller_NS.pdf

Or contact RILES, 179 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02130 USA
Email: info at RILES.ORG

THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF LAND BASED SEWAGE
Opportunity cost is the cost (sacrifice) incurred by choosing one option over an alternative one that may be equally desired. 1.2 billion dollars for land-based sewage treatment could go a long way if spent on other Capital Regional District priorities;
If invested at a rate of 5%/year, 1.2 Billion dollars would give us $60 million per year to work with. That’s 60 million dollars per year, in perpetuity. For 60 million dollars per year, we could:

Tourism
Double Tourism Victoria’s budget to 2.6 million, and eliminate the contribution (currently 86% of the budget) from local business. This could go towards educating our neighbors to the south about Victoria, and give local business a boost.
Cost: 1.3 million/year

Other Businesses
In addition, local business could be given yearly grants to the Downtown Business Association, The greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and other worthwhile business organizations, in order to help and improve local business.
Cost 2 million/year

Environment – global warming
Double the proBus pas program (currently 3000 participating), by lowering the annual bus pass to $300/year from $754/year. This would have the effect of removing 7,200 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year, in addition to nitrous oxides, Carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons.
Cost: 2.75 million/year

Environment – parks
Double the CRD Parks and playgrounds budget. The additional funds could be used to combat invasive species such as broom, blackberry, bullfrogs, etc., purchase new land for parks, improve CRD education programs, etc.
Cost: 6.5 million/year

Environment – marine
Currently, Victoria is spending 3 million to fix broken sewer pipes under James Bay. Oak Bay has committed to spend 10.7 million over 50 years (!) to fix the combined sewer/storm drain system in the uplands that led to some of the 42 sanitary sewer overflows to the environment in January 2007 (a month of high rainfall). This should be fixed more quickly, not over a period of 50 years. Better use of point source control and public education could help eliminate much of the toxic chemicals that make their way into the sewage system.
Cost: 5 million/ year for 3 years. After this time, spend 5 million /year on other needed upgrades in the region, as well as improved point source control and education.

Human housing
Capital Region Housing Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Capital Regional District. Its principal activity is the provision of rental accommodation for citizens of the District. Double the yearly revenues to provide more housing for CRD residents in need.
Cost $ 17 million/year

Human Health
The Capital Regional Hospital District’s (CRHD) will be contributing $108 million in funding for its share of the expansion of the Royal Jubilee Hospital. Over 20 years, this is approximately 5.5 million/year.
Cost: 5.5 million/year

TOTAL COSTS: 41 million/year. This leaves us an additional 19 million/year for other CRD projects and priorities. I’m sure you can think of some!

If anyone with even a modicum of intelligence (and perhaps a hypertrophied 'conscience') has still harboured questions about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the sewage 'debate', those must surely have been answered most effectively and conclusively, courtesy of the April 23, 2008 issue of the Times Colonist. For there, side-by-side on page A15, are laid out the detailed positions of the "Yes" and "No" sides - and that entire page should be imposed as compulsory reading for all involved municipal, provincial, and federal politicians and bureaucrats. Of course, virtually everything in both columns has been stated and restated in various forums many times before. Still, the opportunity to compare the arguments that was allowed by this mode of presentation was invaluable. Even more so, however, was the opportunity to judge the relative value/weight of those arguments, as it may be inferred from the authors signing the two columns. To the 'right' (as it were), ten (of how many?) respected scientists. On the 'left' (required here is the suppression of some tempting puns...), an ill assortment of the usual 'suspects' (2), a 'volunteer' (!?), and someone from something called "Ecojustice Canada" - whatever that is.
After all that, does any of this still need discussion, let alone argument? Not in my opinion - but that opinion is clearly not shared by the representative of a ubiquitous 'environmentalist' outfit (one which is, amazingly, not among the signatories of the afore-mentioned 'Yes' statement), whose comment appears below. Lest anyone reading it should be in doubt about it, let me quote the gist, the hub, the nut of his 'argument':
"The environmentalists and the government ... are very much concerned with image. We have to be seen to be doing the right thing and obviously it is not the right thing to dump our waste material into the ocean. Right? Right.
The question is why is it not the right thing to do. In most situations it is obvious. ... Here in Victoria ... it is not so obvious.
If we examine the situation with SYSTEM THEORY [my emphasis] however the reason becomes clear."
Now if THAT isn't a convincing argument - for the NO side, that is - nothing will be.
All kidding aside, though, no amount or kind of argument (much less reasoning) will make a blind bit of difference to the politicians who are pulling these particular strings. And so it comes as most welcome (not to say very surprising) news to learn that, at long last, the body of politicians that is in the best position to obstruct (if not yet repel) the arbitrary demands of Scout Penner and his Puppet Master--the CRD Board, that is--has found the courage to say at least an interim "No" to them! It is, of course, delightfully ironic that this 'precipitate' action was brought about by yet another government minion: the Minister of Community Services (now there is an oxymoron to treasure!) no doubt intended to serve her Master by refusing to release (and then pretending not to have known - I wonder where she had learned that subterfuge?) precisely the report that is key to the CRD's ongoing planning!! (I wonder: where do electors find such able people?)
Of course, the battle is FAR from over. But, surely, now that this small breach has been made (or should that be committed?), AND something approximating the true cost to the taxpayer has been revealed (not that those figures take any of the usual escalators into account), others out there with the requisite knowledge and moxie will be ready to come forward and join the fray. After all, what is needed now is an effective series of delays (legal, if available), and only for another year. For in May 2009, by which time the full horror of the Olympic venture will also have become public knowledge, it should be child's play to send Barry, Ida, and the Puppet Master to the breadline!

I attended the Cascadia Green Building Council deep green Unconference in Vancouver a few days ago. The opening plenary address was all about poop. Two large ( 22 storey ) buildings were unveiled for Portland that will not even connect to the city sewer. All utilities will be self sufficient within the buildings themselves powered by the sun with water sourced from rain and recycled. This is not even a new idea here in Victoria where Van Bellingham's vision of a whole community not connected to the city sewer is unfolding at Dockside.

The pro and con column for sewerage treatment run in the Times Colonist recently were a shot across the bow of the provincial government and the CRD. The debate is not over. Especially at $200-$700 a household. The scientists were lined up in the No side and the environmentalist community was on the Yes side with the provincial government. Such unlikely bedfellows. How times change.

So why are the environmentalists, who always tout science as their touchstone (I be one) not in agreement with the scientists?
So, fresh from my conference on poop I will endeavour to explain. Many studies have shown that the effluent stream into the Straight of Juan de Fuca gets all the processing it needs under water. The accidental combination of our coastal geography provides a really efficient sewerage plant at minimal cost. So the scientists say 'What's the problem?. They go on to say that even if we spend the money and provide the on land processing, the really bad chemicals and hormones will either bypass the system through the storm drains or go straight through as they are unaffected by the typical sewerage treatment plant.

So again 'If the money does not solve the problem, why spend it?' We could spend all this money and still have heavy metal salmon on birth control pills.
And I dare say, they are probably right.

The environmentalists and the government on the other hand are very much concerned with image. We have to be seen to be doing the right thing and obviously it is not the right thing to dump our waste material into the ocean. Right? Right.
The question is why is it not the right thing to do. In most situations it is obvious. The water becomes polluted and fecal coliforms abound. The potential for sickness rises. The communities down river will have unsafe water to draw from. An old axiom was that all communities on rivers should draw their drinking water downstream of their sewer discharge. This encourages clean effluent. Here in Victoria because of our local geography it is not so obvious.

If we examine the situation with system theory however the reason becomes clear. The nutrient cycle that is sourced on the land should typically stay on the land. When we dump it in the ocean we are systematically depleting the land.

So let's have a look at the Ida Chong secret report. I bet there are a few more examples for small local sewer plants that return compost to the land and clean water to the community.

Let's not build the last of the great dinosaur sewerage plants just as the new wave is budding to life.

martin golder
Chair, Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter.

Though some may consider the TC's latest editorial (“Sewage questions deserve answers” Mar. 6) "excellent", there IS one tiny 'problem' here that must not be allowed to pass unremarked. It is that this (unsigned) editorial conflicts DIRECTLY with the TC's editorial (equally unsigned) of 21 December last ("No turning back on sewage plan")!
But let's acknowledge small (very small - read inadequate, why not?) 'improvements': instead of forecasting $ 100-150 costs per (taxpaying) household, this time we are told that the annual cost "will" be $ 500.
Tempting as it is to comment again on what all this reveals about the 'new' TC, I'll pass on this occasion. Instead, let me call, AGAIN, for an end to polite, measured, reasoned (even scientific, Heaven forfend!) argument from the - let's call it the No side. Agenda-driven individuals and groups (the Minister, his Puppet Master, 'Mr. Floatie', the so-called 'environmentalists', etc., etc., ad nauseam) have not the slightest interest in same, nor the slightest intention of responding in a similar fashion. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO! So would someone, please start 'shooting back', before it's really too late? As I write this, and as you read it, the bills are piling up. Though it is pleasant to think ahead to the 2009 provincial elections (see my comment of 29 December), that is not enough!

Letter to the Editor of the Times-Colonist March 6 2008

Your editorial (“Sewage questions deserve answers” Mar. 6) is excellent. Until the Minister of the Environment has answered key questions about his $1.2B sewage treatment plant, the largest public works project in the history of Victoria does not deserve to proceed.
As reported Sunday by your Rob Shaw (“No reprieve on sewage treatment …”) the Minister said: “. . . the provincial capital should have to follow the same rules on treating its waste as the rest of the province.” However, one of the main points being made by BC’s scientific community is the significant effect of BC’s geographic situation related to this sewage issue. Imposing the same sewage treatment methods on every part of BC would be like forcing Victoria to buy the same snow removal program and equipment as Prince George.
The Minister’s proposed solution is not cutting edge technology. Our best scientists tell us that a land-based treatment plant producing sludge and its attendant disposal troubles will solve none of the sewage issues we have, while creating additional ones. If rammed through, it has the potential to be the Liberals’ Fast Floatie scandal.

I hope you will keep speaking out. Your credentials should attract public and political attention. Unfortunately, however, the rational arguments you present don't pack the same simple media punch as a Mr. Floatie. I think your side needs a spin doctor or a Barak Obama to present the case effectively.

I am a Yank who has been employed in the environmental field for over 30 years. I cannot comprehend or in any way justify the level of ignorance in the supposition that Victoria's "engineered" outfalls are not DUMPING RAW SEWAGE into the ocean. Years ago it was popular in the US to say "dilution is the solution to pollution", apparently many in Victoria still subscribe to such an outrageous notion. While I commend you for removing the "floaties", let there be no doubt, what you are doing is not treatment in any significant way. You have not passed much beyond the state of sewage treatment in Ancient Rome! If I were a citizen I would be deeply ashamed.

What would it take to convince you that you need secondary sewage treatment? Would a mass die off of marine organisms clogging the harbor or washing up on coastal beaches get your attention? One of the things I have learned over time is that once done, there may not be enough money to undo the damage man causes. Is that where your comfort lies? If so you are deluding yourselves in the worst possible way. It is way PAST time to clean up your act.

So the Oracle of the Provincial Government (otherwise known as the Minister of the Environment) has spoken - again (as reported in the Saanich News on 21 December). But this time there are storm clouds around Mount Parnassos: the Oracle seems displeased. Specifically, he is displeased with the foot-dragging (or does he mean total lack of 'progress'?) that he feels has been exhibited by the CRD since the initial imperial order mandating secondary sewage treatment had been issued by His Oracleship in July, 2006. And if truth be known (albeit, that is a commodity in pitifully short supply on the upwind side of the issue), the Minister (no doubt galvanized by his Puppet Master, though no Apollo, he) has good reason to be (displeased, that is; otherwise? perhaps not so much). Who, after all, do these local yokels think they are, whining and mewling about science, budgets, locations, hearings, and the PM only knows what other tedious and time-wasting nonsense? So what if there are marine (and other) scientists (and even if in the majority by about 99:1, say) who keep insisting, mulishly, that the science doesn't even come close to showing that secondary treatment is necessary, and that it might very well cause more environmental harm than good (not even to mention picayune considerations, such as the 'harm' to taxpayers - at all levels)?!
Ah, but the Minister is no longer alone (he is, nearly - but we'll let that pass): riding to his rescue (should he need it - and he doesn't seem to think he does) galumph the unspeakable (please interpret as you wish) forces of the 'new' Times Colonist! "No turning back on sewage plan" shrieks the headline over the relevant (?) (unsigned) editorial (December 21 - right on cue, as it were?). And what fitting comradeship it is! The same blithe disregard/distortion for/of science! The same meaningless (for exclusively emotional and completely unsupported) marshalling of 'reasons' (tourism, reputation, etc., etc.)!! And then, hark at this: this piece of drivel (in the now well-established fashion of the 'new' TC, that is, not allowing fact to interfere with fiction, however fraudulent), manages to outoracle even the Minister!!! For we are told--oh, the relief!--that this entire misadventure will cost all of us ("local taxpayers", that is - I don't think the ever-growing rest need worry) "perhaps $ 100 to $ 150 a year per household"!!!! Shame on those alarmists - $ 5-700/year, indeed (at today's estimates).
But enough, no? Now that all those polite, rational (and ultimately ineffectual, alas) letters have been written, by qualified scientists as well as variously eminent others, it is high time to show the Minister (and, very incidentally, the 'new' TC) that the 'debate' is not over. There can be no doubt, however, that its vigorous and forceful pursuit (by any means whatever) has become most urgent. According to one report (Saanich News, December 28), the CRD has already approved sewage rates for 2008 that are some 12 per cent higher than this year's! As this is a wholly unjustifiable increase on any 'normal' grounds, it must be the first shot compelled by the sewage treatment camp. Let's shoot back, shall we? How? That continues to be up to those who have the determination, means and knowledge (legal, scientific, political) to do more than write letters. But the time IS running short!
Even if no other solution is forthcoming soon (and that would be both tragic and disappointing), delaying and obstructing in all forms remains possible. And here, at least, a very thin silver lining is becoming more and more apparent as time goes by. It is now only some 17 months until the next provincial election. By then, the full fiscal disaster of the Olympic gamble will also be known, and PM, Oracle, and rest of that bunch of carpetbaggers will be booted into richly deserved oblivion. And then: 'exeunt omnes' the sewage treatment crowd. Not a moment (or a million or two wasted tax dollars) too soon!

The suggestion by rstv, to compare impact assessments of present ocean disposal and on-land treatment, has merit. I would hope that a rational assessment favours the least overall impact option. These impacts should include the existing situation of nearshore contamination when rainstorms cause raw sewage to be released along Voctoria's shoreline. The on-land treatment option does not appear to address this. The cost of fixing this problem need to be taken into account too.

Saanich News Editor and Keith Vass:

Re: Light rail builds steam (9 November)

Thanks to Toronto City Councillor Adam Giambrone for sharing his
vision of commuter rail with Victorians, but if it was going to cost $375 million in 2002, you can bet that its going to cost at least three times that now. Good example of exploding costs is the CRD's unnecessary sewage treatment plant scheme, which in 2002 was going to cost us $400 millions, but its now pegged at $1.2 billions - and will probably head even higher.

Oops - don't forget that to find enough electricity to power the "vision"
of both a new railway and more useless sewage plants, we'll need to dam
another river (another few hundred million dollars and more drowned
wildlife habitat!).

John Newcomb

Times Colonist
Letters

Re: "Contaminated soil fouls land near reserve" (9 November)

Tens of thousands of cubic metres of toxic dirt are being trucked away
from several old industrial sites ringing Victoria Harbour, but BC
Environment Minister Barry Penner has wrongly blamed our present sewage
treatment system as the marine contamination culprit.

Victoria and Esquimalt Harbours have been industrial toxic cess-pools for
more than a hundred years, and the chemicals' migration out into Juan de
Fuca Strait is quite likely the source of most of the sediment contamination
found there.

Together with storm drain effluent and solid waste/dredge dumping, the
runnoff from toxic soils of Victoria's harbour industrial sites
vastly outweighs contamination that could be attributed to Clover Point
and Macaulay's long offshore effluent outfalls.

Why can't these sewage scheme advocates understand that forcing
us to spend a billion dollars on more sewage treatment is unlikely
to make any significant difference to marine pollution levels if its
not the effluent outfalls that have been the source of most of that
contamination in the first place?

John Newcomb

Today's opinion piece in the Times Colonist ("Let's get the facts on sewage treatment") is most welcome, even if it decidedly falls under the heading of "better late than never". Such a highly public call for a "rational public policy", signed by eminent "citizens of Greater Victoria" rather than by us simple folk, should have the desired impact even at such a late date. I say "should" because I am not naive enough (as certainly some of the 70 signatories are bound to be) to believe for a moment that it will. For ample experience shows that politicians like Minister Penner, or his Puppet Master, have not the slightest interest in engaging in rational dialogue, providing science-based evidence, conducting cost-benefit analysis, or any of the other 'good' things suggested in the opinion piece. So where does that leave us? Precisely where we were before - only it is now much, much later. In fact, the need to mount a multi-pronged offensive (tax-payer revolt, legal challenge, organized delaying tactics, and so on) from 'this side' is long overdue. Surely, the 65 unnamed signatories of today's opinion piece must include at least some who are both able and willing to mount such a challenge, and do so now!

I am a lawyer and a member of Mensa. It seems to me that treating raw sewage in containment (no odours) and significantly reducing suspended solids, phosphorous and oxygen demand before putting the effluent into ponds for later ocean release would accomplish all goals in the most cost-efficient and least odour offensive manner. There is a new technology the can do this. Has Victoria looked at this? If not, I can provide the information.

Pat Dunne

Incinerating CRD sewage now being considered? My email to CRD Board Chair Blackwell: In recent article (below), incineration is mentioned as having been "looked at" by the CRD. Reviewing Core Area Liquid Waste Mgmt minutes up to July, I don't see any discussion of incineration by the committee members. Has it been discussed, and if so, will such discussion be reflected in August minutes? Thanks. John Newcomb

U.S. sewage plant impresses Sterk

By Kelly Howard
Victoria News
Aug 15 2007

A sewage treatment plant in Vancouver, Wash. impressed Esquimalt Coun. Jane Sterk so much on a recent visit there that she’d like to see similar attributes at the plant proposed for Macaulay Point.

“I was impressed by their willingness to really see it as a public amenity, rather than just a functional utility,” said Sterk, who accompanied Esquimalt engineer Gilbert Cote and Capital Regional District officials on an Aug. 1 tour of the Vancouver facility. “What shifted in my thinking is that a sewage plant could be created to not look like a plant, but might be of value to Esquimalt.”

Disguised to look like a college campus or business park, an impressive community centre on the Vancouver treatment plant site is a venue for meetings, even weddings.

Sterk said she is still concerned the CRD might scrimp on what it spends to make the plant acceptable to the public.

But Dwayne Kalynchuk, the CRD’s general manager of environmental services, said all issues around the plant are being carefully considered.

Following the Washington example, the CRD is looking to pump solid waste to an incinerator where less emissions are produced than if trucks were used in its disposal, Kalynchuk said.

The Macaulay Point plant will also include energy recovery technology that is absent in Washington.

http://www.vicnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=36&cat=23&id=1044937&more=0

I recently saw a KTCS "Connects" segment on television, which, based on the duration of airtime segments, seemed to be fairly biased in favor of creating a sewage treatment facility.

I'm in Seattle, and frankly for a community on the Strait it seems reasonable to dispose of waste through the Pacific Ocean, rather than spend the energy on disposal, which seems superfluous.

Your money seems best spent on other things, environmental or not. I sure hope sensibility rather than sensationalism prevail in Victoria B.C.