Sierra Club BC
Advanced Search…

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

  • Home
  • About
  • Media Centre
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Publications
Sections
  • Our Work
    • Environmental Hotspots
    • Flathead River Valley
    • Global Warming
    • Great Bear Rainforest
    • Mining & Energy
    • Seafood & Oceans
  • Education
    • About
    • School Programs
    • Resources & Tools
    • Sign Up for our E-newsletter
  • Local Groups
    • Comox Valley
    • Haida Gwaii
    • Lower Mainland
    • Malaspina
    • Quadra Island
    • Victoria
  • Take Action
    • Environmental Hotspots
    • Flathead River Valley
    • Great Bear Rainforest
    • Seafood & Oceans
  • Events
  • Wild Blog
You are here: Home › Blog › Discharge Only Duty – Help the Ocean
Document Actions
Info

Discharge Only Duty – Help the Ocean

Posted by Colin Campbell at May 12, 2010 12:00 AM | Permalink
The greatest blessing to indoor living was the perfection of the flush toilet, by the eponymous Thomas Crapper in the late 1800's. It does so much for our convenience, who would be without one? But what about the ocean?

The greatest blessing to indoor living was the perfection of the flush toilet, by the eponymous Thomas Crapper in the late 1800’s.  Although the device was invented in 1596, Crapper’s series of plumbing refinements made it an acceptable and highly valued indoor utility. It does so much for our convenience, who would be without one?  But what about the ocean? What about Victoria spilling 130 million litres of raw sewage and its accompanying toxins and pharmaceuticals into the ocean every day?

The inappropriateness of this strategy, long debated, is agreed by all governments, as well as business, labour, tourism, and environmental interests, not to mention more than 80 percent of CRD residents.  While there are some scientists who dispute any threat to the ocean, there is plenty of evidence of harm in the form of chemical contamination at the outlets, shellfish harvest closures and deleterious effects on the diversity of exposed marine organisms.  The practice is in fact contradictory to provincial and federal regulations that mandate treatment.

A solution to this fundamental issue of civil life should engineered in the best and least intrusive manner possible.  But it is imperative now that we reduce all possible stress on the ocean and its systems, for already the unavoidable impacts of temperature and acidity are taking their toll on ocean health.  The ocean needs our help.  This one is easy.

public health is also a duty
public health is also a duty says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:10 PM
We cannot be so focussed on one part of the environment that we ignore the rest. While everyone would agree that there should be some form of sewage treatment, whatever is selected cannot create problems elsewhere.

The CRD's current proposal for treating its sewage is so damaging to the environment, that it should be opposed. Instead of dumping into the ocean, the CRD wants to process sewage sludge into "biosolids," which the Minister of the Environment recommends be spread on forest lands to pollute watersheds and eventually to leach the toxins into the ocean.

The CRD's recommendation is to burn it in cement kilns and waste incinerators in the lower mainland, reducing the quality of that already-polluted airshed and inducing a higher incidence of asthma and allergies in children and adults. It's a costly, damaging, impractical and dangerous scheme.

Claiming that protecting the ocean is the sole imperative is simply blind foolishness. I'm sad to see Sierra Club of BC sink so low.
-originally posted May 17, 2010
Natural, marine-based sewage treatment is best
Natural, marine-based sewage treatment is best says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:10 PM
The best form of sewage treatment for Victoria remains our long screened ocean outfalls, complemented by source controls and monitoring.

Land-based sewage treatment works for Sidney and Sooke, but they have a different marine geography than our own part of Juan de Fuca Strait.

The Sierra Club should come on side and support our current system as being the most sustainable, and least environmentally-damaging of the options. Land-based treatment produces much more greenhouse gases than marine treatment - and there is all that sewage sludge to deal with. NOBODY now can deal sustainably with sewage sludge - it concentrates the chemicals of emerging concern so that organic farmers can't use the stuff. See NFB video "Crapshoot" to see their concerns.

Clear-cutting Haro Woods for an unnecessary sewage treatment plant is just a small part of the environmental damage that will burden Victoria through this terrible sewage plant mega-scheme. The incredible waste is that the Haro Woods sewage sludge will be re-inserted into the sewage pipes to be treated a second time at the McLoughlin Point sewage plant in Esquimalt

So, if you don't like the mega-marina going into our harbour, you sure won't like a sewage plant plunked right at the harbour mouth at McLoughlin Point - with under harbour pipes going up to Selkirk Water for a sewage sludge energy plant - or sludge trucks running through so many neighbourhoods to get to Hartland dump.

For more information on how the Sierra Club members can support the most sustainable, environmentally-friendly option of our current, marine-based sewage treatment, here are some activist websites:

aresst.ca
rstv.ca
victoriasewagetreatment.ca/ccost/
sites.google.com/site/sewageplantsvictoria/

-originally posted May 17, 2010
Please get your facts right!
Please get your facts right! says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:12 PM
This is possibly the most evidence-free statement yet on this topic. Quite an achievement! Against stiff competition (the federal and provincial ministers of the environment) this little piece rushes to the head of the pack. Everything above neatly ignores all of the strong evidence supporting Victoria's deep ocean outfalls as sustainable and eco-friendly. And it fabricates an 80% public support rate for land-based treatment. Last time there was a reliable count (the 1992 referendum) the wise majority voted the other way, FOR the current system (since enhanced) and AGAINST spending mega-bucks to make things worse. The above piece is free of evidence, sources, etc. - why would the Sierra Club sponsor this irresponsible junk???

-originally posted May 17, 2010
Colin Campbell's Crap
Colin Campbell's Crap says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:13 PM
The listed groups might well consider the "strategy" inappropriate, but have they been accurately informed of what the strategy really is? Not if they have been informed by Mr Colin Campbell they don't. Victoria is not spilling raw sewage. What comes out of our outfalls is highly diluted. It is over 95% water. It looks about the same as what discharges from your washing machine. Then, the ocean off Victoria, rich in oxygen and micro-organisms, rapidly digests the organic content into the food chain. Measurements consistently show that the effect on the receiving environment is about 20 times superior to the provincial and proposed federal standards, giving Victoria solid grounds to make the permitted application for exemption from the erroneous one-size-fits-all standard. Hence, Vicoria's treatment strategy is not at all contradictory to the standards. If the listed groups were permitted to receive these facts, and the fact that Victoria's marine environment is not stressed, but thriving around our outfalls, would they consider Victoria's treatment strategy inappropriate?
Experience has shown that such education promotes recognition that our strategy is highly appropriate.

-originally posted May 18, 2010
Colin Campbell
Colin Campbell says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:14 PM
Recently the US Environmental Protection Agency once again granted San Diego a waiver from treatment requirements, allowing them to ignore the requirement of the Clean Water Act to provide secondary treatment for waste-water. The Sierra Club in California,, reversing a previous position, supported the waiver and supported NOT giving the waste-water secondary on land treatment. The reason? The situation in San Diego makes use of the natural treatment provided by receiving waters of the local ocean. It is unusual, but the Sierra Club followed the science, even though it did not please some of its members who wished to continue with the knee-jerk policy of treatment no matter what the science might be.

In BC, the situation in Victoria is very similar to San Diego, i.e. local conditions mean that on-land secondary treatment of wastewater would be a complete waste of time, effort, energy and money, all of which could better be used for environmental improvements elsewhere.

There is no question the logic of the California Sierra Club position would lead that group to support a similar waiver for Victoria. Why won't our Canadian Sierra Club follow the lead of the California chapter and objectively consider the science?

-originally posted May 18, 2010
Colin Campbell's blog on sewage
Colin Campbell's blog on sewage says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:14 PM
This debate could just go back and forth ... Why don't we as citizens take responsibility for our own crap, and use composting toilets; and refrain from using toxins and unnecessary chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Perhaps the geography of the marine area around Victoria has handled sewage from the growing population but where is the tipping point. Would people put the same stuff in their own aquarium as they put down their drains to feed the marine "aquarium"--what you flush may come back as your dinner, as the fish to go with your chips!

- originally posted May 19, 2010
Support for tidal energy
Support for tidal energy says:
Jan 16, 2012 12:15 PM
I find it amazing that the Sierra Club supports the cancellation of a wildly successful tidal energy project. Energy is one of the key ingredients needed to treat sewage. We currently apply huge amounts of free, environmentally friendly, tidal energy to transport and dilute our sewage. Marine scientists tell us the system works extremely well. Does the Sierra Club really want us to replace this with energy-sucking, global warming, treatment plants?

-originally posted May 26, 2010
Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting. Web and email addresses are transformed into clickable links. Comments are moderated.

■

Donate Now

Our Bloggers
Colin Campbell staff photo
Colin Campbell
Moira Chaudhry staff photo
Moira Chaudhry
Sarah Cox staff photo
Sarah Cox
George Heyman staff photo
George Heyman
Susan Howatt Staff Photo
Susan Howatt
Ana Simeon staff photo
Ana Simeon
Caitlyn Vernon staff photo
Caitlyn Vernon
Jens Wieting staff photo
Jens Wieting
Ed team staff photo
Education Team
Bear head shot Jens Wieting
Guest Bloggers

 

facebook-icontwitter-iconyoutube-icon

Sierra Club of BC Foundation , 304-733 Johnson Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3C7
Tel: (250) 386-5255 : Email: info@sierraclub.bc.ca
  • powered by Plone
  • site by Groundwire and served with clean energy