Jump to content

      



























Photo

Sewage treatment


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
42 replies to this topic

#21 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:47 PM

Haha me too! Anyhow, as long as you don't mind some heavy handed moderation down the line, have at it. I won't delete anything that isn't outright insulting or off-topic to the entire forum.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#22 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:48 PM

Caramia - I think we all understand that, and those of us who use VV and enjoy the debate and conversation want to follow the guidelines. Problem is the software and design...we reply or offer comments to a particular topic, even if goes beyond the parameters of the thread, as that is where the interested people are (and they look back at that certain thread for replies)

I believe your current software offers a conversion system to plug in moderator assigned posts to another thread, so definitive subjects can be continued - if not, you might wish to consider a new system. Don't berate us, enable us.

#23 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:53 PM

Yes, it does allow that Mat thank you, I thought we could let this conversation flow for now, and tidy up later in just the way you suggested. No berating intended. :)

Now back to sewage...

about that storm water...
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#24 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:59 PM

....Look, basically it's this: the infrastructure as it exists can't even handle the increased population in Victoria's downtown (see the threads on this board that discuss how new developments in Harris Green are being asked to install black water holding tanks that will be flushed at nighttime because the infrastructure can't handle the increased flushes during daytime), and yet we want to grow the core's population. With that growth, we have to ask ourselves if the infrastructure can't handle the ...er, flood, then why should we believe that the Strait can handle the increase?

And if the infrastructure can't handle it, then why wouldn't we leap-frog over the old technology and figure out that we can use this opportunity to put something truly innovative in place? Ie.,the kind of resource-recovery treatment that other places are using? IOW, why not be that l'il ole house with its coal/ wood fired energy source and lousy 75 amp panel, which then gets a freakin' clue and goes forward with 21st century technologies that allow it to leapfrog over everyone else?

For me, that's the no-brainer aspect of this whole thing.

Invest in infrastructure. Sewage treatment done right is an investment in infrastructure, just like upgrading your electrical panel is. That's all.


I'm confused by this. Building plants to treat what is already coming down the pipes doesn't reduce the volume of stuff being generated by increased population and development. Seems to me that's a separate subject.
If those pushing for it can show some kind of use or cost-recovery then I'm for it. I'm against building stuff simply because more senior levels of government say they'll meet a percentage of the costs.

Mods - if this is in the wrong thread then I don't mind if you move it.

#25 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 09:19 PM

2: Sorry ladies - hormones in waste water is likely the most problematic. Very recent studies from the Great Lakes are showing that even in parts per Billion, our waste water that has HRT and contraceptive residue is radically altering male fish physiology and is considered to be a factor in declining fish populations. Salmon hatchlings in the Adam's lake region are down to an all time low, yet the amount of adult salmon up to spawn last year was high. The Great Lakes study does appear to show is does not matter the volume of water, if fish pass through, there is an impact.


Sure. The residence time of the Great Lakes is about 75 years. The residence time of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is 25 days. The Strait's outgoing volume flux is 10 times that of the St Lawrence. I find it hard to believe that does not matter. We would be talking parts per trillion in the Strait.

The massive dilution aside, I don't think secondary treatment removes hormones (or mercury, or other heavy metals and pharmaceuticals) from the waste. So, $1 billion isn't going to address that problem.

3: Waste treatment does not have to be a 'tax cost, just to be environmental' - out of the treatment plants we can create hot water for buildings, we can recycle grey water for on-demand irrigation for farms and municipal planting, and we can even use treatment plants as a carbon offset.


I think grey water is more important to save water in the region and reduce the need to make more reservoirs. I don't see any reason new buildings couldn't have grey water systems.

#26 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 09:39 PM

wow jklmak - we seem to agree. Make it a closed system, the only way to make it sustainable and ecological. It takes an osmotic filter down to (what level?) microns to catch hormones - none of the CRD sewage plans are even considering this.

#27 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 10:33 PM

Below is an article published in the Sept 08 issue of the Moss Rock Review, a magazine I produce for the Fairfield Community. I think it may be helpful to further this conversation. Writer Freya Keddie (Vic West) received this year's "World Water Day Award" from the Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition and has recently created www.urbanraincatchersgazette.ca.


MAN-MADE EDENS By Freya Keddie

In 1843, James Douglas declared our region “a perfect ‘Eden’ in the midst of the dreary wilderness of the north west coast.” What he actually saw were the camas fields created by First Nations, a vision no doubt enhanced by lovely springs, brooks and wetlands. Many of Eden’s streams now function as storm drains. Wetlands have long since been drained, most of the fields and forests replaced with roofs, roads and concrete; we have literally paved paradise.

Less than 1% of rain falling on a forested area becomes runoff. In residential areas, about 25% of rainfall becomes “urban runoff,” quickly whisked away in greater volumes and in a much dirtier state than from natural landscapes. Every winter, urban streams are damaged by torrents of polluted stormwater. The speed and volume of stormwater also wreaks havoc in the maze of pipes hidden beneath the city. According to local climatologist, Rod Chilton, “…extremely heavy rainfalls caused by moisture-laden weather systems slamming into the south coast are a frequent problem here.” Repeated heavy rainfalls events can saturate the ground, infiltrating through cracks and holes into our aging sewer pipes. Stormwater (inflow) enters sewer pipes via roof drain downspouts, foundation drains, storm drain cross connections and holes in manhole covers. This “inflow and infiltration,” or I&I, can exceed pipe capacity, causing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).

The Uplands area has a problem with its “combined sewers,” designed to collect rainwater runoff and domestic sewage in the same pipe. Heavy rainfall can cause combined sewer overflows (CSOs), fouling Willows and Cadboro Bay beaches. Stormwater management is also a big issue for the CRD sewage treatment project. Treatment plants, pump stations and sewer lines must all have the capacity to handle the maximum expected flow. Long-term strategies include I&I reduction, combined sewer separation and wet weather flow treatment, but it may take “decades” to achieve, so there will likely be a “significant wet weather I&I component to the flow” at Clover Point for some time yet. We could be paying some private company to treat stormwater along with sewage for many years to come.

Homeowners could help to reduce the amount of stormwater during heavy rains. While we wait for costly infrastructure repairs, our communities could be engaged in pilot projects to study the use of green roofs, rain barrels, rain gardens and other “on-site” stormwater management measures. For example:
Thunder Bay’s “downspout disconnection” program alleviated basement flooding by reducing peak flows that caused SSOs and also eliminated the expense of unnecessarily treating storm water at the city’s wastewater treatment facility.

Seattle is investigating the use of residential “cisterns” (large barrels) to keep storm water out of its combined sewer system. Storage capacity ranges from 300 to 1000 gallons, depending on the homeowner’s roof size. In summer the stored water is used for irrigation, but during heavy winter storms the cisterns catch rainwater and then slowly release it later, helping to prevent CSOs.”

Rain gardens are a fast-growing trend in the American midwest. Websites, pilot projects, grants and workshops help citizens become “part of the solution to pollution” by disconnecting their downspouts. Artists auction decorated rain barrels, gardeners enter competitions, and “garden angels” donate plants for those who can’t afford them, all fostering a culture of community while increasing awareness of stormwater issues.

The upcoming municipal elections are a perfect time to raise the issue of “green infrastructure” to manage stormwater problems. Man-made Edens can indeed be functional and beautiful while serving community needs.

#28 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 11:00 PM

Thanks Susan - good historical article quote and comment which addresses some of the particular issues around sewage. I am an advocate for both personal responsibility and government (tax payer) regulation - make it economically worthwhile, for home owners with mortgages, and see a flood of applications. You made a good comment in a previous post - something about it does not have to be a provincial or federal program, city initiatives can do more, and more effectively.

So...is there a proposal to get a rainbutt/slow release irrigation system to most households in Vic. as in Seattle? Would you propose it?

#29 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 11:51 PM

Hi Mat - Yes. I feel it is important to make the "green city" dialogue more inclusive of older, existing neighbourhoods. I would support a pilot project to reduce the amount of stormwater released from properties if a group of homeowners were to approach me with such a proposal.
Sue

#30 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 24 September 2008 - 09:45 PM

My stance on sewage treatment is pretty simple. If it can be shown that sewage treatment as proposed meets the "triple bottom line" criteria, I'm interested. In other words, it should show measurable social, environmental and economic benefits.

If it fails that test, for instance, if an independent body determines sewage treatment is being driven by politics, my interest diminishes.

#31 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:17 AM

My stance on sewage treatment is pretty simple. If it can be shown that sewage treatment as proposed meets the "triple bottom line" criteria, I'm interested. In other words, it should show measurable social, environmental and economic benefits.

If it fails that test, for instance, if an independent body determines sewage treatment is being driven by politics, my interest diminishes.


Yes!

#32 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 30 September 2008 - 09:41 AM

CCC

The Concerned Citizens' Coalition released its new 10 point Recovery Plan Victoria 2008 on September 21, 2008.

It is available for perusal at the Concerned Citizens' Coalition Weblog ('CCC Blog') at http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/.

Point No. 4 of the CCC's Recovery Plan Victoria 2008 addresses the sewage treatment issue and other large public expenditure proposals with this policy:

'4. PUT SEWAGE REFERENDUM ON 2011 BALLOT QUESTION

The sewage issue needs to be put on the next municipal ballot for democratic ratification.

To make it difficult for politicians to borrow money, ensure that all large borrowing proposals are put on ballot questions at election time, not during extraordinary referenda, and that they meet high thresholds for passing.

At least 70 percent of eligible voters must vote, and a further 70 percent or more of these voters must endorse the proposal for the borrowing to pass.

This will protect taxpayers from politicians with grandiose schemes.'

- Gregory Hartnell, President
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

#33 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 30 September 2008 - 12:49 PM

-Just moved my response to the Amalgamation thread.

#34 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 30 September 2008 - 03:33 PM

I would love to buy some rain barrels for my house and use the water the garden, but the barrels cost about $90 each! I would want to buy three of them, but spending $270 for this is just more than I can contemplate at the moment.

#35 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 02 October 2008 - 11:42 PM

Its a good point. And I don't want to come across as naive or too idealistic but perhaps a city-wide pilot project would be of promotional interest to whoever manufactures rain barrels - and we could negociate a considerably lower price point based on a large community purchase.

Or perhaps the City could purchase on a smaller scale and designate a number of willing residents to use them as a study model.

(When I was growing up my sister and I left empty peanut butter jars on the back porch to collect rain water to wash our hair. But I digress. Time for sleep)

Sue

#36 Joseph

Joseph
  • Member
  • 80 posts

Posted 03 October 2008 - 02:39 PM

I find it interesting most of us seem to be avoiding the issue of public vs. 'p3' development of this project. From what I understand, the fact that we're getting treatment is a given, not just due to provincial pressure, due to pressure from within our own city, our tourism industry, our partner municipalities and our business community. The issue now is this; given this issue is the result of citizen advocacy, will we deliver what the people of Victoria want or simply the most cost-effective, standardized, compromising model?

There's no point introducing treatment unless it benefits us in the long term through energy sequestration and smart integration throughout the communities. The public has made it clear they think this has to happen through public development and it's our responsibility as [potential] politicians to make sure that happens, independent of Campbell's vision.

#37 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 03 October 2008 - 04:07 PM

If it fails that test, for instance, if an independent body determines sewage treatment is being driven by politics, my interest diminishes.


I"m told that the pressure for land based sewage treatment is coming directly from the Premier. When he was elected last time he said that he would base his policies on scientific evidence. Well - this time he is ignoring evidence promoted by the local scientific community and ordering us to proceed with land based sewage treatment without giving us the opportunity to do a thorough cost benefit analysis. It is clear to me that due to unique conditions in the Juan de Fuca strait we are lucky to have ocean based treatment that is far more effective than land based treatment can ever be. I can not support land based treatment - which will only dilute to one part per hundred, and then flush it in to waterways (and on to the sea) and still have sludge to deal with. Our current ocean based treatment dilutes to one part per thousand, with further dilution and dispersal as the flushing action of the Fraser River continues to move through to the west.
The opportunity costs of land based treatment are significant. Look at www.rstv.com
for a full analysis of this issue.
Pieta VanDyke

#38 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 03 October 2008 - 09:15 PM

It is clear to me that due to unique conditions in the Juan de Fuca strait we are lucky to have ocean based treatment that is far more effective than land based treatment can ever be.


I disagree completely. And even if "ocean based treatment" (wtf?) was ok for a small town, it's not going to work for a growing city over time. (But then maybe you don't want Victoria to grow?)

As for Campbell --

I"m told that the pressure for land based sewage treatment is coming directly from the Premier.

-- he's one of the first pro-business but also pro-environment people we've had in government here, and to put a partisan spin on the issue as you do suggests to me that you can't look at this objectively.

Sounds like the old NDP shtick, like Carole James asking BCers to send their $100 climate cheque to the party.

That is so not what we need at the municipal level.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#39 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 03 October 2008 - 10:04 PM

-- he's one of the first pro-business but also pro-environment people we've had in government here, and to put a partisan spin on the issue as you do suggests to me that you can't look at this objectively.

Sounds like the old NDP shtick, like Carole James asking BCers to send their $100 climate cheque to the party.

That is so not what we need at the municipal level.


Well said - push it more. We are lucky in Victoria that partisan politics, like Vancouver and the GVRD, have not (yet) become part of our regional political landscape. Ms. B - I support the NDP on most issues, but agree totally with you that sewage treatment is a necessity and that at a municipal level, party politics is not welcome.

Have all federal parties pledged new money directly for Victoria's sewage future?

#40 groundlevel

groundlevel
  • Member
  • 76 posts

Posted 07 October 2008 - 03:32 PM

ocean based treatment happens with Victoria's (and Langford's and Sooke's) unique and natural system -- the flushing of the Juan de Fuca. Oak Bay flushes into the Straight of Georgia -- and needs a land based treatment system. Seattle and Vancouver also need land-based systems

If Victoria builds **** factories on land instead of listening to marine biologists explaining our incredible natural advantage, we are political idiots played by know-nothings.

It would be as dumb as taking the magnificent natural agricultural delta created by the Fraser River (the kind of rich river silt upon which great empires rose) and turning this rich farmland into subdvisions -- oh no, wait -- that's Richmond!

dumb. dumb. dumb. in a province that lacks much arable land, we paved over the richest farmland available, farmland that would have fed the entire lower mainland.

and now, we're forced to design a third-rate land-based system instead of delighting in the very rare, very unique system we already have?

dumb.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users