Regarding the CBRA’s report on the sewage treatment proposal, why does it state that “sewage treatment is required”?
Is the Assn unaware that Victoria already has a world-class system of treatment that is essentially equivalent to secondary? The CRD’s database is full of reports and studies that conclude that the effect of the current treatment system on the marine environment is well within accepted standards. Total suspended solids are about 1/20 of regulation levels. The concentration of metals in the discharges are 1/10 to 1/100 of EPA standards for drinking water. The current system is so effective that it already meets the objectives of the new federal wastewater regulations.
The current system’s effect on the marine environment is so minimal that the proposed system will hardly improve on it. Its on-land infrastructure will cause more environmental harm than gained in the ocean. Pharamaceuticals and personal care products will still be discharged into the ocean. If incineration of the sludge is chosen, there will be harm to air quality as well. No -benefit has been idenfied for what will be an expenditure of over a billion of our tax dollars.
In case your reasoning has been influenced by the sensationalized news broadcasts, back on Oct 3rd, of a UVic study that concluded vast contamination of the Victoria waterfornt and threat to human health, by fecal coliforms from the outfalls, that was all a media stunt by environmental groups. Councilor Brownoff received assurance from CRD science staff that coliforms were not an issue on the waterfront. On Dec 11th, the microbiologist who conducted the tests stated twice to the CRD sewage committee that he could not attribute the coliforms to an particular source. As experts knew from the moment of the broadcasts, coliforms from the outfalls do not survive beyond 400 m, and that what the scientist detected was the natural background levels of coliforms that exist everywhere throughout the environment, deposited by all fauna.
The project is being promoted by/for political and commercial interests, and is supported by very weak evidence. Most of the evidence is very much against the project. The project is not supported by environmental need or by the science community. (4th letter down at this link)
Brian Bruchill
View Royal
