We still pay for the log boom mess
Letters
Times Colonist
June 30, 2008
Before the province asks Victoria to waste a fortune on worthless
sewage treatment, why doesn't it clean up its own outrageous cesspool
in the Victoria Harbour first?
Spread along the beach off Barnard Park in Vic West is a layer of an
inch to a few inches of putrefying wood and bark debris that reeks to
high heaven, suffocating the sand beneath and passersby above.
The powerful sewage-like stench is similar to the smell in any
sheltered bay where logs have been boomed.
The provincial government leased the foreshore rights to the logging
companies to tie up log booms until 1979.
But having collected the rent for 50 years, the province has denied
responsibility ever since. The 29 years since booming ceased have seen
many puny, under-equipped volunteer clean-up efforts.
One especially bad year saw one-third of the occupants of the nearest
apartment vacate the premises. I remember almost gagging, on more than
one occasion, as I drove by the worst spot on Esquimalt Road.
Another nearby apartment owner had 27 dumptruck loads of putrid wood
sludge removed from the beach at his own expense.
There are still the hulks of sunken logs, seen at the lowest tides,
gradually releasing more vile rot. The province has abetted the
development of truly unhealthy conditions. It should clean this up.
Craig Carmichael
Victoria
Sewage treatment will create crisis
Letters -Times Colonist -June 23, 2008
The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses' criticism of
rapidly rising municipal budgets (June 16) is indeed a great cause for
alarm, mainly because our city budgets don't yet reflect the immense
"white elephant in the room" -- the huge Capital Regional District
sewage scheme.
As elephantine financial costs start to grow exponentially, the sewage
scheme's negative impacts on our environment will start to be obvious
to residents. The sewage scheme development will not likely add
anything to revenues, in spite of wildly optimistic assurances of
"resource recovery," but will damage our environment. For example,
Saanich residents might not only pay a huge part of sewage scheme
costs but also be saddled with more than a dozen of these
neighbourhood plants, with all their pipe-laying, road-ripping and
toxic treatment chemicals around.
This has been foisted on us by the Campbell government. But city
councillors have not yet challenged either the provincial or federal
governments' demand for more sewage treatment.
John Newcomb
Saanich
Spending on sewage hurts other needs
Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Re: "Sewage tax hikes could exceed $700," April 20.
The Capital Regional District's estimates compare with the study released a year ago by public health economist Rebecca Warburton. She estimated an initial capital cost between $800 million and $1.5 billion. She further estimated the annual cost to an average household (with a home valued at $500,000) at $390 to $720 per year. (See "Cost of land-based sewage treatment" at www.rstv.ca.)
Unfortunately, public and personal finance are each zero-sum games. Municipalities will not have the resources to expend on other much-needed programs such as daycare or affordable housing. For most families the tax increase will mean less spending with local merchants and reduced contributions to local charities.
The federal and provincial contributions are also not "free" as they mean pulling tax dollars from other needs.
Further, the value and desirability of this project has been questioned by some very knowledgeable individuals -- oceanographers and marine biologists, respected public health officials, a local MP with real health expertise, a former federal environment minister.
Before committing to such expenditure we need to be absolutely certain that it is warranted.
Alex Murdoch, Oak Bay
Sewage issue can't be shovelled aside
Letters - Saanich News - April 09, 2008
It's our sewage, our problem - not the next generation's. Our actions impact our environment. Look at plastic bags and how citizens are challenging us to deal with this 1970s product. Why when we flush our toilets do we not see the same problem? Is it because we receive mixed messages around this pollution and how to deal with it?
Representing Saanich at the CRD requires me to read many scientific reports, the Liquid Waste Management Plan, and review other governments' requirements. It's a large issue, a large footprint and it's ours!
CRD report stated "In 1970, prior to discharge from the outfalls, there was a rich community of organisms at the points of discharge comprising of over 300 species, like anemones, sea worms, mussels, swimming scallops and crabs". Recent annual reports show many more pollution tolerant species dominating this community and as a result of organic matter (sewage) overwhelming the community their numbers are declining.
Past reports highlighted with low or slack tides, visual pollution of condoms, tampax applicators and other "floaties" made their way to the surface. We have fixed this problem by installing finer screens at the end of the pipes, but pollution still comes to the surface but not the large floaties!
Effluent plume modeling results coupled with CRD water quality data indicated the standard for direct shellfish harvesting was exceeded outside the previous closure boundaries. In 2002 expansion increased the closure area from about 42-60 square km of Juan de Fuca Strait adjacent to the core areas of the Regional District.
In comparison, CRD's Saanich Peninsula Secondary Treatment plant outfall has a four square-kilometre closure. Closures around outfalls are established to prevent the spread of diseases.
In 2005 an independent scientific and legal analysis of CRD's own monitoring data was conducted and conclusively demonstrated that the areas around the outfalls had higher levels of toxic chemicals than the levels prescribed by both provincial legislation and national guidelines for contaminated sites. These findings were confirmed by the province in 2006 and BC Ministry of Environment ordered treatment.
The Federal Government's scientific analysis and development of a national standard will be adopted by 2010. Victoria is considered high risk and we will be ordered to treat by 2020. The CRD can't break the law or significant daily fines can be imposed under the Federal Fisheries Act.
The real issues are to ensure that our communities get amenities, not impacts; that we use the bio products to help reduce our environmental footprint and reduce our use of fossil fuels; that the financial obligations are phased in over time and affordable; and that whatever technology selected today will be adaptable to future technology or regulation.
Judy Brownoff
Saanich councillor
CRD director
Sewage plant won't help environment
Letters - Times Colonist - January 05, 2008
One of your recent editorial's arguments for additional sewage treatment rests on evidence that contamination has been found near the outfall site, but high levels of contamination have also been found scattered around the marine area outside of Esquimalt and Victoria harbours. Most of these hot spots are nowhere near the Macaulay outfall. Another of your arguments, that without this $1.2-billion sewage scheme Victoria's tourism industry would crumble in the face of a campaign by environmentalists, speaks volumes for the unthinking attitude of both the tourism industry and of some environmental activists. Spending other people's money on a useless sewage scheme monument might please both those pressure groups, but it won't do a thing for the environment. Many us who are opposed to this scheme are saying the current proposal is not the best way to significantly reduce contamination in our marine environment, but will probably create more contamination on the land. Rather than rushing into a poorly thought-out sewage-plant scheme, we need to support an immediate and long-term program of focused research, to understand what are the greatest threats to our marine and land environments. Throwing billions of taxpayer's dollars at the scheme with no expectation of any measurable improvement in the environment will leave a legacy that our children will not thank us for.
John Newcomb - Member of Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria
Letter - Times Colonist - May 15, 2007
Re: "VIHA plea for funds meets CRD resistance," May 10.
Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard and other Capital Regional District directors have voiced concern with how the CRD will pay for its share of a $269-million 500-bed hospital tower. I'm not surprised but I am disappointed.
Faced with an essential addition to our health-care infrastructure,the CRD directors are raising legitimate concerns about the lack of consultation and impact on property taxes.
Faced however with a misguided directive from the province to proceed with a $1.2-billion expenditure for secondary treatment in the absence of any credible evidence of environmental, social or economic benefit for the affected taxpayers, these same directors appear to have been struck dumb.
More than one director has simply fallen back on the rather lame excuse that they are simply following "orders."
It is hypocritical to raise concerns about essential health-care expenditures while at the same time simply caving in on the issue of secondary sewage treatment. I expect more from my elected representatives.
Sharon Miller, Victoria.
People must speak out on sewage plans
Letter - Saanich News, Victoria News, Esquimalt News, Goldstream Gazette - Apr 20 2007
The estimated cost to build additional sewage treatment facilities in the Capital Regional District is now up to $1.2 billion. That's $1,200 millions.
The final costs of politically driven mega projects usually come in much higher than the estimates. This estimate doesn't even include the many millions of dollars that will be required each year just to operate the plants. This will be the largest expenditure of tax dollars in the history of the CRD. Property taxes will be going way up and rent increases will follow. Some people will not be able to afford these increases and it's inevitable that a lot of hardship will result.Tax fatigue will also result in an inability to fund important initiatives.
Taxpayers have a right to know just what they will be getting for all this hardship and pain. The answer is nothing. Sewage treatment, past the treatment already in place will not protect the environment, clean up our beaches or improve public health. We can build political treatment plants or emotional treatment plants or even Olympic treatment plants, but please don't be fooled - we won't be building treatment plants that will protect the environment or public health.
There will however be serious and quantifiable impacts to the environment. Thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases will spew into our atmosphere during construction and as long as the plants continue to operate. A fleet of trucks will be required to move biosolids throughout the region each and every day. These activities will further accelerate global warming. This will be the tragic environmental legacy of building sewage treatment plants in the CRD.
There are many pressing social and environmental issues facing the CRD. They include health care, homelessness, habitat destruction, failing municipal infrastructure and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Building sewage treatment will jeopardize our ability to
deal with these real concerns by spending an obscene amount of money on "feel good" sewage treatment plants.
At least some of the politicians on the CRD Board know there will be no benefits to increased sewage treatment. It's time those politicians stood up. It's not enough that the provincial Minister of the Environment has given an "order" to the CRD. Our local politicians cannot hide behind that order. It's time to re-evaluate the misguided course we are on and consider a way out of this mess. It's not too late but it soon will be.
The science around the need for sewage treatment in the CRD is complex. The resulting confusion within the community is being exploited to promote the agendas of a few politicians and special interest groups. I want my property taxes to be used in thoughtful and practical ways. Additional levels of sewage treatment are not required at this time and may never be required in the CRD. Politics and heavy-handed government edict won't change that fact. I urge the citizens of Greater Victoria to ask their elected representatives "why" we need additional levels of sewage treatment and "what" we will get for our tax dollars. We can't let our social, economic and environmental agendas be determined by political expediency and a six-foot talking turd.
Rob Miller
Saanich
Sewage money wasted
Letter - Saanich News Apr 18 2007
The CRD and others have argued for years that the need for a sewage treatment plant was very debatable on technical grounds. Politicians have decided to spend the staggering sum of $1 billion of our dollars. Imagine what fantastic things we could achieve if we spent even half that amount of money on source control of these chemicals and metals.If we have to have this sewage treatment system, then it seems elementary that the very least we should be planning to do, is to treat or remove these pollutants which are unequivocally a serious insult to our world environment. Kent Green Victoria Money could be used for many other things. Letter - Times Colonist Mar 28th 2007 More than one billion dollars to provide sewage treatment which isn't need in the first place! Surprise! Just imagine what one billion dollars could do for the homeless problem, light rapid transit, our roads and trail systems, our hospitals, our recreational facilities, etc. What a bunch of sheep we are! Bob Wheaton, Victoria . The real menace to the environment Times Colonist March 27th 2007 Re: "Despite the price, treatment needed," editorial, March 24. The Times Colonist editorial board has become the proverbial ostrich! Maybe it can ignore the rain as well as the facts! Victoria doesn't need secondary sewage treatment any more than it needs more rain. The scientific case supports the excellent sewage treatment already in place. Land-based sewage treatment is a menace to the environment. Let's save more than a billion dollars and do the right thing ... natural sewage treatment . John Bergbusch, Victoria . There's no reason for sewage treatment Times Colonist March 27th 2007 I spent many years in various administrative and technical positions with the provincial government analyzing waste management controls, including the Victoria area. All logical debate, to date, based on facts, has failed to show a valid technological reason for a treatment plant.Utilizing the ocean environment and currents with primary screening clearly offers by far the most common sense, as well as economical method of solving our waste disposal dilemma.
Charles J. Keenan, Victoria.
Re: "Flush with ideas," Jan. 21
Nothing shows Victoria's sewage predicament more clearly.
Times Colonist January 27th 2007
At present, we have a system that produces no carbon dioxide and requires little to no infrastructure or energy to run, while a recent report concludes that within 1,200 metres there is no measurable effect from the sewage flowing from our outfall.
It is a fantastic showcase of nature at its finest, doing what it has for millions of years, consuming waste of all forms.
Look out, here comes man: We're going to do it better. We're going to create a big energy-guzzling plant, drive waste around in CO2-belching trucks, use it to create gases to fuel CO2-belching cars and then use the water to cool our industries and sprinkle our pesticide-laden golf courses.
This is what proponents want you to believe is "green," yet it serves no purpose beyond man's desire to maintain our current lifestyle while consuming ever more.
Victoria is being hoodwinked by the eco-religious, politicians and their supporters.
Kevin Beaton, Victoria.