Sewage plan missing key elements
Saanich News and Victoria News - September 25, 2008
Recent Capital Regional District ads and commentary on sewage treatment, designed to update taxpayers about the most massive project ever proposed for this city, described the CRD's re-examination of its original scheme and of the potential for "resource recoveries."
However, there remain critical omissions from these plans, for example:
o a comparison of their eventual proposals with our current system, with cost-benefit analyses
o the repair of our antiquated storm drain system (where raw sewage is discharged onto our beaches following heavy rainfalls), and
o the completion of environmental impact studies.
Currently, our finely-screened effluent (99.9 per cent water, with no "floaties") flows into the most nearly-perfect treatment plant that Mother Nature could devise.
This amazingly efficient system uses the free energy and vigorous oxidization of our tidal currents, and has a minimal impact on our environment - only 200 metres away the effluent is virtually undetectable.
This discharge would not be acceptable in other locations. It is done where it is, and how it is, after lengthy studies that have proven, for decades, how wise they were. The CRD's source control and education programs have also greatly reduced the chemicals and toxins in our system.
Six medical health officers have publicly stated that there is no measurable risk to our health from the present system, and 10 marine scientists have stated that there are far more effective ways to protect and improve our marine environment.
So why would the CRD not address these issues? And why would they not insist on fixing our storm drains, regardless of the need for any further sewage treatment?
Land-based treatment will significantly affect our environment. The energy consumed in producing tons of concrete and other materials in constructing these plants; the energy and fossil fuels used in operating them; the trucking of sludge away from them; and the treating and disposition of the sludge, are some of the by-products to be weighed.
We are facing several elections. Those elected will be voting on these vital decisions. This project will raise homeowners' property taxes by $500 per year or more. Real problems like homelessness, public transit, seniors care, hospital facilities and equipment, arts facilities etc. will take a back seat to this massive expenditure of our future tax resources for many years to come.
So, when considering who you want to support, perhaps you should ask whether they agree that these issues must be addressed, and who should get to vote on this project?
Shaun Peck,
Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria