5673 replies to this topic

[rayne_k]

It already has a plant? So if that's the case then why not make it large enough to sustain a greater population?

I'd say that most of the penninsula is enough for one plant. Besides, they've had it for years (since at least 2000), have been paying their higher water rates since building it, and are probably content to sit back and watch the rest of us duke it out for where we will site ours.

If it weren't for a tour I once had of the facility I might be a NIMBY, I was quite impressed (clean-smelling compared to what I had expected).

I feel that they can be sited nearly anywhere with very minimal impact to immediate neighbours.

[G-Man]

There were some smell issues when it was first built they had to do some upgrade to improve it. I remember some unpleasant drives along Hwy 17.

[renthefinn]

^That may have been from the old plant that it replaced? The tour I had was kinda stinky, but from a little distance it doesnt' really smell. Standing above the aerators was probably the smelliest part of the tour.

[Holden West]

I went on a tour of the [url=http://www.sewerhistory.org/grfx/wh_region/paris_tour1.htm:7825a]Paris sewers[/url:7825a]. It's a big tourist attraction.

[rayne_k]

^That may have been from the old plant that it replaced? The tour I had was kinda stinky, but from a little distance it doesnt' really smell. Standing above the aerators was probably the smelliest part of the tour.

I think that was where I noticed a bit of scent as well, but amazing how only a few meters away it was fine.

G man I admit I don't remember smelling it in the past (old plant?).. But with whatever they have in there now, the fact that we can drive by and not notice anything is gives me tremendous confidence in whatever technology or techniques are in use.

I think that the CRD should arrange for publicly accessible tours of the facility in order to help lay people's minds at ease about what it is really is lke.

[G-Man]

Yeah it was only for the first couple of weeks of its operation. I agree it is great now.

[ressen]

There were smells in the past. At first they used only lime and a filter tower but that was not enough so what they have done recently is build a wooden enclosure that is filled with composting wood chips. They are blowing the exhaust fumes trough the compost pile and that seems to have alleviated most of the smell.

[Mike K.]

Sewage plants to cost $1.2 billion
Politicians stunned by price; large tax hike predicted

BY ROB SHAW Times Colonist staff

It will cost between $1 billion and $1.2 billion to build sewage treatment plants in Greater Victoria, the Times Colonist has learned.

The estimates, to be released publicly today, have left politicians stunned and Capital Regional District staff scrambling to calculate the presumably large tax increase it will take to pay for the plants. As one politician described it, “chins are bouncing off desks” over the cost.

The federal, provincial and municipal governments had previously agreed to split the cost for sewage treatment three ways, meaning Greater Victoria taxpayers may pay around $400 million directly.

In 2005, the CRD calculated spending $447 million on sewage treatment would add $573 in taxes to an average household in Greater Victoria.

That would be one of the biggest tax increases in regional history. And it would make sewage treatment the most expensive capital project ever undertaken in Greater Victoria. (By comparison, it cost the federal and provincial governments approximately $1.2 billion to upgrade and build new portions of the Trans-Canada and Island highways from Victoria to Campbell River throughout the 1990s.)

The new estimates contemplate building up to six treatment plants around the region.

The general locations were proposed last month: Near UVic in Saanich, at Macaulay Point in Esquimalt, at Clover Point in Victoria, and three plants in Langford and Colwood. It also calculates the difference between centralized versus decentralized systems.

Some plants include secondary treatment levels, and others use resource recovery to extract clean water from dirty sewage.

The report also uses the CRD’s estimates of how much it will cost to buy the land for the plants.

When CRD sewage committee members looked at the cost figures behind closed doors this month, they were nervous about the cost, but conceded the region doesn’t have any choice but to go ahead.

The B.C. government has ordered the CRD to submit a timeline for building treatment plants and cost estimates by June 30.

mailto:rfshaw@tc.canwest.com

[Jeffamartin1970]

Sewage is needed is Greater Victoria. I am not sure what type is best or most cost effective. We need to improve the environment in Victoria. Sewage treatment is good for our public image, and for helping to improve local waters. We should have had it twent years ago in Greater Victoria. The time has come, but are we going to be able to sell it too home owners, and voters?

[m0nkyman]

I refuse to answer the loaded question....

[Caramia]

Personally I don't think the need is as great or as immediate as it has been made out to be in the media. That said, at this point we have to do it, as it has reached a media critical mass where we have painted ourselves into a corner. With that much money, I believe we could have make a more significant impact on environmental and social health through other means. I'd have liked to have seen a study that took the amount and considered various ways to spend it within those realms, and looked at compartive benefits. Anyhow, I think now we suck it up and whether or not it makes entire sense is sort of irrelavent. On the up side, it is an investment in our future, I suppose. No doubt in 20 years we would need it.

[Mike K.]

We'll readily pump $1.2 billion into controversial sewage treatment but we can't afford to keep pace with public transit use.

This just proves that once threatened with a poorly orchestrated media blitz (Mr. Floatie, et al), politicians will do just about anything to appease special interest groups.

[ressen]

What is 1.2 billion divided by the number of households? Couldn't we just divide up the money and have treatment done right at the source (every one will be issued a cork). The electrically evaporated poop dust would go in to the organic compost bin that gets picked up by municipal crews along with blue box and garbage. The water saved by not flushing the crap down the toilet could be sold to California with the proceeds going to help pay for the treatment and eventual profits could pay dividends.

[Mike K.]

^interesting thought.

I wonder how much of the sewage treatment bonanza is a result of recent "climate change" hype?

[ressen]

No matter how you slice it; sending human excrement in vast quantities in to a body of pristine water just seems wrong. How would we feel if Seattle, Vancouver and Kelowna used large pipes to discharge their untreated sewage in to the Juan De Fuca strait?

[Mike K.]

TC:

Could more treatment be a waste of money?

BY DR. SHAUN PECK
Dr. Shaun Peck was the regional medical officer of health
from 1989 to 1995.

Will land-based sewage treatment really be more effective than the current ocean treatment? Will there be a cost-benefit from additional sewage treatment? Is the “triple bottom line” approach (giving equal weight to the economic, social and environmental issues) being applied fairly to all options for effective, environmentally sound sewage treatment?

Enthusiasm for additional sewage treatment has been voiced clearly by the Victoria Sewage Alliance and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, in favour of large landbased engineered treatment works. There is a general belief by many elected officials and the public that it is needed.

However most scientists who have examined the present practice of deep sea ocean discharge cannot find the evidence of need for more treatment.

The planned land-based treatment works will need significant acreage. Heat, bio-solids, oils and metals and other materials could be recovered from the sewage effluent.

All this will come at a significant cost to the taxpayers. The final costs of the proposed land-based treatment are unknown, but the estimate is $1.2 billion.

The Victoria core area sewage, which is really 99.93 per cent water and very little actual solids, is discharged from two deep ocean outfalls more than a kilometre from the shore, after first passing through six-millimetre screens. There are no “floaties.”

At the end of the outfalls the effluent passes through diffusers that are 200 metres long and 60 metres below the surface of the ocean. Most of the year, the effluent plume is dispersed well below sea level.

In the winter months, the effluent plume, diluted by 1,600 times before it reaches the surface, surfaces only 4.8 per cent of the time at the Macaulay outfall and 1.7 per cent at Clover Point.

Occasional bacterial tests have detected this diluted plume. But there is no evidence that it represents a public health risk — based on a comprehensive study of potential human exposure.

While many Victorians might not be aware or might not agree, the current method of disposal of our liquid waste is highly effective environmentally and economically and has not been shown in several studies to produce any significant measurable effects on the environment.

There is evidence of metals and other chemicals in the ocean sediments that might have arisen from many sources, including Victoria’s long historical practice of dumping garbage from barges into the ocean, shipwrecks (a coal barge sank off Brotchie Ledge) and from other sources, including storm drains, and migrating harbour pollution.

There will be a significant environmental impact from land-based treatment plants. This will include the destruction of natural habitat, production of greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, and all the energy needed for making concrete, operating the plants, running many pumps and the sludge-hauling trucks and so on.

Land-based treatment will not be more effective in protecting the environment than the current treatment system (preliminary sewage treatment, long deep sea outfalls and source controls). There will be zero cost benefit because no clear marine or land environmental or public health benefit has yet been established.

If the triple bottom line approach is used and as a “base-case” includes comparison with the current ocean discharge, together with comparison of the opportunity costs, it is likely that continuing the ocean discharge would be a clear winner. The otherwise wasted sewage plant funding could be allocated for pressing regional priorities of health care, homelessness, transportation and climate change.

Whatever the outcome of the current planning, it is important to continue and to improve the successful source control program preventing unwanted chemicals and grease from entering the sewage effluent, to continue watching for significant harm to the environment or possible public health effects, to conserve water (thus reducing the disposal problem) and to prevent the beach contamination that occurs when there are storm water drains that overflow directly onto our shorelines in the winter months.

Before the final commitment of the promised funds from the provincial and federal governments and funds from the municipal property taxes for land-based sewage treatment for Victoria, these key questions need to be addressed.

Most importantly, there must be a full, fair, and transparent environmental impact assessment of all of the sewage treatment alternatives, with our current natural sewage treatment system as the base-case scenario.

If policy makers reviewed the science and made a fair comparison they would likely conclude that the current ocean treatment was environmentally superior (particularly with regard to climate change) to large land-based treatment plants. The potential waste of taxpayer’s money could be saved. Dr. Shaun Peck was the regional medical officer of health

from 1989 to 1995.

[ressen]

1.2 Billion; How much would that be per house?

[VicHockeyFan]

In 2005, the CRD calculated spending $447 million on sewage treatment would add $573 in taxes to an average household in Greater Victoria.

[G-Man]

Sounds good. Teach us for putting things off.

Terminal expansion
LRT
Mackenzie Overpass

ETC ETC ETC

[renthefinn]

The answers don't work for me, it's unneccessary, but if we have to have it by legislation, the legislating power should pay for it, unless they can come up with some serious scientific evidence that harm is being done. I beleive in time with population increase it will be required, but why jump to secondary treatment all in one shot when primary treatment could be implemented at a much cheaper cost, and incrementally. Then as population increases we can afford more options.

This money would be much better put towards transit improvements that include a rail system (downtown streetcar, or regional LRT).