Blog Wrap Up

It has certainly been an eventful summer for the sewage treatment issue in Victoria. After years of inaction and vague promises, a concrete plan has been put in place which calls for sewage treatment by the year 2016. Although this distant deadline provides an opportunity for incoming politicians to backtrack on the treatment promise, it seems the days of Victoria turning a blind eye to the practise of dumping raw sewage into the ocean have finally come to an end. The focus of the sewage issue now turns towards the complicated and possibly arduous task of land acquisition for treatment facilities, along with holding the provincial and federal governments to their promises for funding (Seeing as two-thirds of the funding for sewage treatment is coming from these two sources). It will also be interesting to see how city residents react when they see their municipal taxes increase to pay for treatment. Regardless, Victoria has finally adopted a liquid waste management plan that is modern, environmentally friendly, and eliminates an embarrassing legacy that the city, and its valuable tourism industry, have had to downplay for years.

Giving the People what they want

While exploring the CRD (Capital Regional District) wastewater website I found a survey that was comissioned in 2006 to judge resident's knowledge of the CRD and what its priorities should be. The survey found that 72% of city residents believed that sewage treatment should be the number one priority of the CRD. Residents believed that sewage treatment would provide cleaner oceans, lakes and rivers, and would also lead to a cleaner environment with less pollution. Of the concerns that the survey uncovered, only 10% of those surveyed listed "cost/increased taxes" as their primary concern with treatment, while the most common concern was potential odour from a treatment plant (23%). Interestingly enough, the senior citizens of Victoria mentioned the sewage treatment issue more often then any other group in the survey. 79% of those over the age of 55 said sewage treatment should be the number one priority of the CRD, compared to only 66% of those between 18-34 years of age.

New Link

I added the link to the CRD wastewater site which has followed the progress of the proposed amendment and has some other relevant and interesting information.

Responses

I recently emailed a number of groups that I knew had taken an active role in lobbying the city of Victoria to change its liquid waste management policy. I asked these groups what they thought of the amendment, and Victoria’s promise to begin treating its sewage.
So far, only one group, the People Opposed to Outfall Pollution (POOP), has responded.

The response from People Opposed to Outfall Pollution was fairly positive. The representative who emailed me expressed that although he was fairly happy with the amendment, he did have some concerns. The representative of POOP stated that the 2016 deadline seemed a bit too drawn out, although he recognized that because some of the land had to be acquired from the federal government, the land acquisition process could be a lengthy endeavour. He goes on to express his concern about the passage in the amendment: "If anaerobic digestion is used to treat the sludge, the CRD intends to capture the methane gas for use as a source of energy." The representative believes that the “if” should be removed from the passage and that capturing methane gas for energy use should be a mandatory aspect of the amendment. He expresses that if Victoria choses to pass on a plan to capture the methane gas, or simply delay the introduction of such a measure, it may never happen.

Amendment Details

The CRD amendment to the Liquid Waste Management Program (LWMP) puts forth a provisional schedule for treatment implementation. The provisional plan calls for four treatment facilities and one sludge treatment facility to be located beside an existing landfill. Of the four potential sites named in the provisional schedule, two are locations owned by the Government of Canada, one is owned by the City of Victoria, and one has a mixture of public and private ownership. The City has pledged to provide Secondary treatment or better for wastewater flow up to two times the average dry weather flow, and primary treatment for flow that exceeds two times the daily average dry weather flow. Two of the proposed treatment facilities will be water reclamation plants that will be able to supply high quality reclaimed water for use in toilets or irrigation. The estimated cost of the four wastewater treatment facilities and one sludge treatment facility is $1.0 billion, which is expected to be inflated to $1.2 billion by the mid point of facility construction. Of note is that the Ministry of Environment, which called for this mandatory amendment of the CRD’s LWMP, has yet to approve the amendment.

Major Changes

After years of indecision on behalf of city planners and leaders, the push that finally lead to sewage treatment eventually came from the provincial government. On July 21 2006 the minister of the environment for British Columbia directed the Capital Regional District (CRD) to amend its current Liquid Waster Management Plan to include a definitive timeline for sewage treatment. After month after month of apparent foot-dragging and a lack of clear progress, the amendment was submitted to the provincial government almost one full year later, on June 29 2007.
The amendment calls for the CRD to have functional sewage treatment facilities by December 31 2016. The amendment calls for up to five sewage treatment facilities and one sludge processing center. The amendment has set December 31 2008 as a deadline for more specific plans for sewage treatment and as the deadline for specific sites for treatment facilities to be confirmed. The dates mentioned in the amendment are contingent on the both the Federal and Provincial governments provided one-third of the needed funding. If these commitments are not in place, the amendment allows for the CRD to delay the implementation of sewage treatment.
Details of the plans are still coming out and no doubt the numerous groups involved will be unhappy. For environmentalists, 2016 will probably seem much too far in the future for a problem which needs a solution now. For scientists who are not sold on the idea that the current system is harming the environment, the cost associated with this massive undertaking will be seen as an exorbitant cost to a problem which may not be a problem at all. More details of the amendment and the reaction by the key interest groups involved in the sewage debate will be the subject of upcoming blog posts.

Links

Ive added some links to groups looking the change Victoria's sewage treatment policy.

Why Not?

I think most people would agree that the thought of pumping raw sewage into the ocean is not only repulsive, but morally wrong. When I first approached this topic, I assumed that scientists would be side by side with environmentalists in urging the city to change its ways. As I have researched the topic, however, this is not the case. Although there are scientists who believe that the data show that the area around the outfalls are being negatively affected by the sewage, there are other prominent scientists who disagree. A University of Victoria biologist, Dr. J. Littlepage, wrote a report on Victoria's sewage policy, and concluded that “all studies have indicated that we have one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly sewage disposal systems in the world." Even the former Victoria's Regional Medical Health Officer, Dr. Shaun Peck, found no evidence of bacterial contamination around the outfall stations.

With the scientific community divided, residents and politicians of Victoria are able to voice concerns over the substantial cost that a treatment facility would inflict, without enduring feelings of guilt which an outsider might expect. The concerns over cost are not without merit. In 2005, a Capital Regional District report estimated that a primary treatment facility would cost the city $237 million, while a secondary treatment facility would cost $447 million. Both figures provided are only estimated for building the facilities, while annual operating costs would be a multi-million dollar endeavor.