However, they won’t be the only ones to suffer, as McLoughlin Point is right at the mouth of Victoria Harbour – so if you don’t like mega-marinas, you’ll find that the ecologically-sensitive foreshore at the Point also an environmental negative.

Too many environmental negatives when there is NO sound environmental reason for additional, land-based sewage treatment.

Mayor Desjardins appears to have publicly taken a critical view of some of the CRD CALWMC process, but problem is that she doesn’t oppose the unnecessary land-based sewage treatment project itself – just quibbles over the siting.

Neither does STAG/Bellefontaine appear to challenge the very weak rationale for this wasteful, environmentally-hazardous sewage treatment plant project, but her focus is just on the resource recovery aspects and siting.

Tim Morrison, writing in the blog Esquimalt Review, has two current articles, one of which features Bellefontaine:
esquimaltreview.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/crd%E2%80%99s-stinky-decision-making-on-sewage-treatment/

and the other article by Beth Burton-Krahn:

esquimaltreview.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/crd%E2%80%99s-sewage-treatment-plan-should-be-flushed-down-the-toilet/

But now, more than ever, the Committee needs time to get it right. From its inception in 2006 most of this project’s problems have resulted from hasty decisions, often driven by the impossibly short deadlines imposed by BC’s Environment Minister. How many times over the past four years have CALWMC members been quoted as saying, in effect: “I don’t like the plan in its present form but we have to meet a deadline so I’ll hold my nose and vote for it.”

Repeated studies, and the independently-monitored reports of the CRD’s own Science staff, have shown that the existing system poses no immediate threat to public health or the environment, and the argument for land-based treatment has always been that as our population grows “we can’t do this forever.” The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, in the Canada-Wide Strategy document signed in 2009, suggests a 30-year time frame as appropriate for such situations. And postponement of a $750 million expenditure, in the present economic climate, could not be a bad thing. Surely Mr. Penner can give the CRD a year or two.

If Mr. Penner is referring to the MacDonald Report, this report simply brings to light contamination of the ocean floor surrounding the Macaulay sewage outfall. But it fails to link this contamination to sewage. It merely recommends further studies. Moreover, this report makes no mention that this area used to be used as Victoria’s garbage and nuisance dump before the Hartland landfill was brought on stream. Amongst the many nuisance items dumped there were car radiators and batteries, both rich in lead and other heavy metals. There are also reports of a sunken coal barge near the outfall. The fact that ocean bed contamination is DECREASING around the outfalls further weakens the link between ocean bed contamination and sewage.

Or, perhaps Mr. Penner is referring to a curious paragraph in the SETAC report: “Relying on the dilution and natural dispersion …is not a long-term answer to wastewater disposal…also contribute contaminant loads to the Strait and to Puget Sound ”. This is unfortunate because there is evidence this paragraph was added after the fact, given that it has zero support in the body of the report and its absurd claim that Victoria’s effluent will [travel up stream] to the contaminate the Puget Sound.

My email to Kim and Rob:

Hey Kim and Rob:

I think Rob has been away from the “sewage file” for too long!

“Sewage here goes through a six-millimetre screen before being shot via 100-metre-long pipes into the Strait of Juan de Fuca”

…and the correct answer from Times Colonist files:

“The Macaulay Point outfall pipe in Esquimalt travels 1.8 kilometres away from shore and sits 60 metres below the surface. The Clover Point pipe is 1.2 kilometres long, and 65 metres deep.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/features/sewage/story.html?id=6944f801-be05-424b-939d-ea7896c00f59

Grateful you include correction in upcoming newspaper? I’m sure our RSTV members will also be sending you lots of emails about this! Its really a serious issue, when the greatest threat to our marine environment isn’t from our LONG outfalls, but from the storm drains that are so short.

John Newcomb
aresst.ca
rstv.ca
victoriasewagetreatment.ca/ccost/
sites.google.com/site/sewageplantsvictoria/

I note also the reference to “100-metre-long pipes” into the Strait. In fact the pipes are about a mile in length and end in diffusers.

In response to your comment above, I offer the following objections:

1. It is not good enough to quote the BC Minister of Environment, who in turn quotes nameless federal scientists, to conclude that Victoria and Montreal are the worst offenders with regard to sewage disposal. The receiving environments of the two cities are vastly different, for one thing, and we would need to see figures that demonstrate that Victoria’s current system performance is in violation of the forthcoming federal regulations, now gazetted.

2. If Victoria is found to be in violation of these forthcoming regulations, the first question to be asked should be, “Is it possible to modify the existing system to meet the new regulations, as opposed to assuming that land-based sewage treatments is the only solution.” Before committing to the billion dollar, high-carbon footprint that will be created by a completely new system, there should be an open scientific debate on the advisability of proceeding, calling in public health officials and marine scientists who are charged with making recommendations. Then the public should vote on the recommendations.

3. The question of who pays for this new system — the need for which has not been scientifically supported — Federal or Provincial or local funds, is a red herring based on fear mongering. The first thing to do is to establish which treatment would most cost-effectively meet the new federal standards, and THEN pursue a fair and just cost-sharing agreement for whatever level of modification may be needed. If the federal and provincial governments cannot pay their share, then it’s obvious a new system has low priority for them. They can’t BOTH mandate it, and NOT pay for it!

We obviously should not be rushing headlong into an enormously costly system because of funding fears.

I too will not support the NDP in future if it caves in to this kind of bullying.

Let’s put the cart squarely behind the horse where it belongs!

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Woodworth
Victoria, BC