Address to the CRD's Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee meeting on November 25, 2009 by Alex Murdoch, a retired Marine Consultant on behalf of ARESST.
I’m here today on behalf of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment (ARESST), a recently incorporated society with the objective of promoting our existing natural sewage treatment system – one which has been called “the most efficient and environmentally sound ... in North America.” Our members include scientists, engineers and lay people who believe that potentially disastrous mistakes are being made in the rush to approve a new treatment plan.
I've addressed this committee before, on the proposed Saanich East North Oak Bay plant, but although that item is on your agenda today - and I'm tempted to note that its projected costs outweigh benefits in all three Triple Bottom Line parameters (fiscal, social, and environmental) - I'll stick to generalities and a little local history.
First, our members share the concern that ever since a land-based treatment system was ordered by the Minister the process has been driven not by science but by political mandate and arbitrary, artificial deadlines.
As has often been stated, this project, if it goes ahead, will be the largest,
most disruptive, and most expensive ever undertaken by the District. It will divert enormous sums from areas such as health care, social housing, environmental upgrades, and infrastructure of every kind. As such it demands careful and intense scrutiny from the first premise to the finest details. Instead we see a draft "Plan" full of unknowns in nearly every respect. Unknowns made inevitable by the December deadline.
But tabled alongside that draft Plan is the 2008 Marine Environment Program Report - well prepared as usual - which shows that the present system has had no adverse effect on the marine environment and poses no significant risk to public health. In fact, it is working just as it was designed to, with a quality of discharged effluent well within the standards of the present Provincial permit and in fact within the proposed new (tougher) Federal standards. There's no hurry! There should be time for sober second thought.
Now, some familiar local history: Back in the ‘90s a Premier had a brilliant idea – an idea so brilliant that he decided to forgo consultation, or analysis, or verification trials, and simply ordered “make it so!” That idea, of course, was the FastCat Ferry project. You all know the rest: nearly half a billion dollars was flushed away; a shipyard and several small businesses went bankrupt; hundreds of jobs were lost; the NDP suffered a defeat from which it has not yet recovered.
The fault was not with the shipyards, or the architects or engineers. They did just what was asked of them. And the workmanship was impeccable. The problem was with the idea itself, and with a politician dictating design. There were critics from the start, most notably an internationally recognized expert who just happened to live in Victoria, but they were dismissed as cranks and crackpots. It was small consolation for them to be proved right!
Now, I’m retired, but for most of the past twenty years I was in the marine consulting business and I spent lots of time around shipyards, naval architects, and engineers – even occasionally with BC Ferries staff. I don’t know how many times during the construction of those vessels I was told, over a private cup of coffee, “This is a really dumb idea!” But the project carried on.
I know there are persons within CRD staff, and even within this committee, who feel that way. I urge them not to make the same mistake. Make your concerns known! At least the FastCats could sail away – our grandchildren will have to live with your decisions.
I keep hearing "We have no choice. The order has been given and we have to comply." But even though I may disagree with Mr. Penner I'm sure he's a nice man. He's not Stalin. You won't be shot! And I'm sure you can weather a few harsh words.
So finally, please, vote to expand the excellent programs now under way – including Interception at Source, the elimination of I&I, twinning combined sewers, etc. and otherwise withhold this amendment pending further study.
And, please, indicate that such study will include cost-benefit and environmental impact comparisons of all the options, including retention (and improvement) of the present highly-effective treatment system.