A Green Approach to Sewage Treatment

Written by Donald Galloway on Sunday October 7, 2012

Let’s try to simplify the Victoria Sewage Problem by stating clearly what’s at stake.

We should start with the science.  Dr. Tom Pedersen, a highly respected oceanographer at the Pacific Institute of Climate Solutions tells us categorically that the currents, temperatures and other aspects of the Juan de Fuca Strait render it unique. We do not face the same sewage disposal problems as other communities because Nature plays a different role breaking down the organic particles.

With one important qualification (to which I will return) he tells us that the treatment of human sewage is a non-problem because Nature is on our side and primary measures are in place. Until we hear compelling counter-evidence, we should believe him.

Now let’s look at the legal dimensions of the problem.  Our lawmakers at both the provincial and federal levels have developed general rules to ensure that sewage problems that are experienced throughout the province and the country are addressed. Laws are general in nature. The demands of our lawmakers are not tailored to deal with the idiosyncrasies of our particular situation.  So we find ourselves having to meet standards that are both redundant and hugely expensive. To paraphrase Charles Dickens’ character Mr. Bumble, if the law requires us to pay $780 million to fix a non-problem then the law is an ass.

I have taught law for over 30 years. I do not believe the law is an ass.  It is quite normal to read exemptions into the law, and to read it in a purposive way.

At this point, our municipal representatives should be placing the current scientific evidence before their provincial and federal counterparts in an attempt to gain recognition of our exceptional circumstances, to obtain assurances that the laws will be read purposively.  As with many of our environmental problems, the source of the trouble is to be found in our democratic institutions.

So do we not have to worry about sewage?  No, we have to remain vigilant and monitor and regulate our situation carefully.  Dr. Pedersen’s qualification that I noted earlier is that our sewage is contaminated by petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals  and heavy metals. We need to ensure that people and businesses do not use our sewage pipes as dumping grounds for dangerous substances.  And even at our most vigilant we are unlikely to be 100% successful.  We should be directing our minds to the problem of diverting hazardous materials from our oceans and recovering the resources that we obtain; it is on this issue that we should be consulting our scientists and risk management experts.  Our thoughts about secondary treatment should be informed by these problems rather than by a non-problem.  Our plans to divert sewage should be based on the best available technology.  The current proposal is not sustainable over the long term. It runs the risk of making a non-problem into a land-based sewage disposal problem for which we don't have great solutions.

Comments

Submitted by wmjohnstone on

Hi Donald. I hope to meet you this weekend at Moss Street Market.
Meanwhile though, could you please elaborate your take on the region's sewage proposal? I confess that, like most Victorians, I don't know enough about the issue to decide sensibly.
You said above that scientists and risk management experts should focus on secondary treatment, so we can properly deal with the heavy metals and other serious pollutants now released into the strait. 
Meanwhile, it seems the province, with our grudging CRD, is bent on following through with its plan. I *do* object to the idea that we should spend the federal and provincial money simply because it'll be there. We indeed have too many other high-priority problems to permit such waste of our taxpayer dollars.
But exactly what needs to happen with the sewage proposal, from the perspective of the Green Party? If you win the by-election, what will you do about this problem?
wmj

Please introduce yourself at the Moss St Market. I hope the weather improves. Canvassing tonight was a bit wet.

On the sewage question, I have two things planned for the immediate future First a personal meeting with Dr Pedersen, the oceanographer I refer to, in order to ask questions  about the future sustainability of the current mode of treatment. My understanding is that the cold currents at present break down the organic matter and carry it out to the ocean with little impact, but I think we need to know whether we have a short or a long window of opportunity.  I've heard from others that the current practice will not be sustainable for too much longer. However it may be long enough for us to think about alternative less costly technologies.

The current concerns are that a.) we do not not need to spend the $780 million right now, b.) we should be thinking of sewage as a resource rather than a problem and c.) we may be creating a land based sewage problem at the Hartland dump instead of the current non-problem in the ocean. Each of these concerns needs to be addressed.

The second thing I have agreed to is a meeting with the CRD Wastewater team to hear why they are so keen to move ahead when the science seems to suggest that there is no rush. That meeting is scheduled for next month.

In terms of solutions, I think that there seems to be  discord between the provincial authorities and the CRD: the former is attempting to impose a cookie cutter solution on each municipality and the latter thinks that there is no way to argue against their demands. It should  be possible to broker an agreement between the two levels of government to ensure that all decisions are based on the scientific evidence.

One of my biggest worries is that if local taxes are increased substantially without any scientific reason for doing so there will either be a taxpayer revolt or there will be a resentment against supporting future infrastructure projects that are needed. I hope this  gives you a better understanding of how I think things should proceed. The important thing is that every decision should be informed by scientific knowledge rather than conjecture and that governments should cooperate to work in the best interest of Victorians

Best wishes
Donald

Several UVic scientists, public health medical doctors and engineers who agree that our current sewage system is basically sound (see references below) don't "greenwash" our system as saying that it has absolutely no risks. Nor do they seek to inculpate sewage plant advocates as Soviet tyrants. 
 
However, while the federal government might seek to classify our system as High Risk, mostly because of the volume of effluent discharge, these scientists might class it as Very Low Risk, both because of the high volume and energy of the receiving environment (Juan de Fuca Strait), and because of the type of effluent (relatively low in industrial chemicals). 
 
Its ironic that while federal and provincial grants account for about $500 million of the current total capital cost of $791 million, the actual sewage plant itself is only currently $210 million. Much of the balance of capital funds is spent on attempting to reduce the high environmental impacts of land-based sewage treatment that our current system does NOT produce: thousands of tons annually of sewage sludge nor thousands of tons of greenhouse gases. 
 
At this time, many view the haste to "move forward" as really an excuse to get shovels in the ground for jobs and profits, with little concern that there has been neither another democratic referendum (1992 referendum rejected a sewage plant), or a serious environmental impact assessment (as either BCEAA or CEAA). This haste to enmesh our community in a quagmire of bad decisions taken so quickly is just a symptom of a very ill political system that I hope Donald Galloway is trying to address. Certainly the recent op-ed (link below )by BC Green Party leader Jane Sterk appears to be a giant step in the right direction! 
LINKS: 
Sewage treatment wasted – The Victoria (BC, Canada) example
Science, politics and ideology—The Victoria (BC, Canada) sewage issue
Statement by Public Health Doctors
Jane Sterk: "Sewage plan is just money down the drain"

Submitted by ejanicki on

The Green Party position on sewage treatment is surprising and disappointing. Some scientists argue in favour of sewage treatment. My common sense says that it is not a good thing to dump so much sewage into the ocean.
Is there no limit to what the currents can take?  Surely there is some limit.  The Green Party seems to be saying that there is no limit to what harm be can inflict on the ocean.
This issue has been studied for years. What makes you think a better solution can be found?
Some scientists say there is no evidence of harm. That is not very re-assuring. Others say there is harm . Maybe not everything harmful is being measured or noticed.

Submitted by dpullen17 on

 
Based on your interpretation of the science, we can tell every community along the west coast to stop treating their sewage because the ocean will take care of it. I am sure the taxpayers of Vancouver would be happy to stop paying for their treatment plant and the employees working at it. How can anyone in the Green party not see that the long term effect of 80 years of pumps about 130 million litres of sewage a day into the Juan de Fuca Strait, is not having an adverse affect on the region. If you just count that from when you first came to Victoria back in 1989, that’s 1,093,150,000,000 litres or 1 trillion litres of sewage during the time you have lived in Victoria. If they had built the treatment plant back in the year you moved to Victoria, how much cheaper would the costs have been at that time?
I live just north of Toronto, Ontario and our water systems now feed directly from Lake Ontario. I have been voting for The Green Party for the last few elections not primarily because of their Green message but I am glad someone is pushing our government about Green issues. I can find comments in the Toronto Star where people insisted that no city on the Great Lakes needed sewage treatment plants because all the sewage washed through the lakes system, up the St Lawrence Seaway and out to the ocean. So why bother?  But even with all our treatment systems, we still have the few beaches in Toronto closed each year because of fecal contamination. What are your beaches like? I am embarrassed as a Canadian to find anyone in a city of 350,000 people that choose to ignore what an impact that untreated sewage is having on the environment, no matter how much “Nature” takes care of it.
I do not know the details of the current proposed sewage treatment plant and how well or poorly designed it is. But after 80 years of ignoring the problem, at what point will someone say we need to stop pushing this issue down the road. 100 years? 150 years? And at what population? 400,000? 500,000? 1 million?  The Green Party are exactly the people who should be saying this cannot continue and maybe the current proposal is not the best solution, but you need a solution now and at some point we have to bite the bullet about the costs and prepare to build.
Derek Pullen

As an environmentalist, I'm flabbergasted by your stance on this.
The Green Party's plan is to continue dumping sewage into the ocean and hope for a cheaper technological solution in the future, because fixing the issue now would cost too much?
I feel like I've heard this line of thinking before. Replace 'Green' with 'Conservative', 'sewage' with 'greenhouse gases', and  'ocean' with 'atmosphere' in the preceding sentence, and you might realize why some enviros are upset with your position.

CRD agrees that the current marine-based sewage treatment stage is preliminary stage, and together with source controls is adequate to treat OUR type of sewage in OUR type of marine environment. To rush into a $1billion (est capital cost+just 12 years operating expense) that will provide NO measurable improvement in our marine environment is not evidence-based science. NDP would rush in without adequate, assured environmental safeguards because the sewage mega-project (plant, P3 energy centre, 50 kms pipelines) is proceeding without an environmental impact assessment.
An EIA - the sort of thing that the NDP says is good for Northern Gateway pipeline - but says nothing about our own sewage megaproject. Even Oak Bay Council is now demanding a proper EIA: http://goo.gl/g3qDS
Thanks Don Galloway for your well-reasoned stance on this issue - it reflects your well-reasoned policies overall. 

Submitted by Belle on

 Seems strange that dollars and scientific explanation support your rejection of ending dumping raw sewage into the Ocean. `We could use this 1 billion`` somewhere else. This sewage is just a drop in the ocean and stopping it will have little or no effect on the ocean, so why waste money on it seems to be your thoughts.
 Why then does your party still support spending/taxing our country and economy to the tune of billions annually to attempt to cut "greenhouse" gas emissions? We could cut Canada's emissions by 100%, shut the doors and turn off the lights, and it would have VERY near 0% effect on worldwide emissions. Oh, I know! It's the per-capita argument! Per-capita we put more greenhouse gases in the air than some other countries. How does your per-capita argument work with raw sewage dumping in the ocean? How about the "Green area" and party excusing their raw sewage dumping due to cost or "it's a big ocean"?
 The gasses that WE put in the air are easily taken away by the wind, and our trees also digest a fair amount of it.
Or is it more like...yes it will cost money and taxes may have to go up, but we have to do it....unless it's in MY OWN BACKYARD, Victoria!