Presentation to the CRD Board, December 9, 2010, by Mr. John Bergbusch, Chairman of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment (ARESST)
(Mr. John Bergbusch is a previous Mayor of Colwood and member of the CRD Board)
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board
Today representing the Board of ARESST, the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment, I am speaking on the three items in 5.1 in your agenda.
First I will speak to the report on the existing treatment system, 5.1.3. ARESST would like to congratulate the CRD on the outstanding results reported on the existing land based preliminary and ocean based secondary sewage treatment system. It is clear from the data that the ocean environment in the immediate vicinity of the outfalls is thriving and that the sewage is receiving the equivalent of secondary treatment within a short distance of the end of pipe.
This is truly an outstanding achievement. As Dr. Jack Littlepage, a biological oceanographer from the University of Victoria has said, “Victoria can boast of having the finest and most effective sewage treatment system in North America”. Nine of his colleagues at the UVIC IOS (Institute of Ocean Sciences), and UBC would agree. John Motherwell, a local design engineer specializing in sewage treatment and the designer of an award winning treatment plant at Port McNeil concurs, when he has said that none of the approved and functioning sewage treatment systems he has designed could match the effective performance of the existing treatment systems at McCauley and Clover Points. His evaluation of the effectiveness of Victoria’s existing sewage treatment system is and I quote “ This is a stellar performance. Any engineer who could produce the existing effluent limits at the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) as reported by the CRD would be a hero.”
So, the question is, why would the CRD Board consider passing the motions that precede this report. Well, the two reasons most frequently given are “ The Minister of the Environment has ordered us to do it.” (rather echoes the phrase, “the devil made me do it”) and that “Victoria has to enter the twenty first century” in sewage treatment practice.
So let’s examine what is proposed in items 5.1.1, and 5.1.2.
Three land based sewage treatment plants, one located on prime waterfront at the entrance to Victoria Harbour, another next to a school in the midst of a 50 year old subdivision in suburban Colwood, and one that would require the destruction of an urban forest in Gordon Head in a prime residential area. These treatment plants would also require a large number of ancillary works to make the system functional.
The production of a vile toxic sludge for which no disposal plan has been developed (sale as kiln fuel is pure speculation) and for which the only short term plan is to dump it at the Hartland Road Land fill. There it would contribute poisons to the leachate that winds up in the sanitary sewer system.
These are hardly twenty-first century solutions. Rather, they sound more like infamous practices of the 19th century Industrial Revolution.
In addition, a consequence of these proposals is the resulting green house gas emissions through the destruction of forest, the construction of sewage plants, the trucking of toxic sludge, and its incineration. ARESST doesn’t think the delegates to the Copenhagen conference would be impressed.
And you propose to spend at least $975 Million in capital costs alone and more likely between S1.2 and S2 billion or more over the next 10 years to build and operate this land based system. Now we know all of you are anxious not to raise taxes if you possibly can, so why would you propose taxing for a land based sewage treatment system that will make things worse rather than better? It just doesn’t make sense.
So, rather than carry on with the proposals, let ARESST make several suggestions.
First, table the proposals. Indefinitely.
Second, pass them if you must, but when it comes to budget time in March, allocate a nominal budget of say, $5000, to “fund” the ongoing development. That would effectively freeze the project.
Third, as local MP Keith Martin has suggested, “do a cost benefit analysis to show how we can be effective at addressing our environmental challenges. Most of the worrisome pollutants that damage our environment (heavy metals, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals) will not be removed through your proposals”.
Fourth, you could invite the Ministers of Environment, Federal and Provincial, to a workshop, where you could educate them in Victoria’s outstanding environmental practices as demonstrated by the existing sewage system. Until firm commitments have been made and contracts let to build plants, there is still an opportunity for the Province, the Regulators and the CRD to take a sober second look at what works best for Victoria
The best solution for any problem is always the simplest one. You already have it. It works. It’s good for the environment. It is inexpensive. Keep it. It is the Twenty-first Century solution.