What's the poop?

For decades debate has raged (or stewed) over what kind of sewage treatment the Victoria area needs. On the one side are those, including Mr. Floatie and the Georgia Strait Alliance, who say Victoria is an environmental delinquent and that it is disgraceful that the capital district continues to pump its raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. On the other side are the sceptics, including former local M.P. and federal Minister of the Environment David Anderson, who believe that building treatment plants could be a massive waste of money. For example, the association Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria argues that "the most appropriate and responsible sewage treatment method for Victoria is the existing natural treatment system (NTS) with improved source controls and infrastructure upgrading." A letter with 92 signatures, published in the Times-Colonist on November 1, included the following:

The evidence indicates that the worst problem with the existing liquid waste disposal system is the continued failure to address storm drain overflows. Last January, for example, heavy rains resulted in raw unscreened sewage being discharged from storm drain outfalls along the coastline over 40 times.

The Ministry of Environment has mandated sewage treatment, at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion dollars. Yet the currently recommended plan submitted to the Minister would not fix the storm drain problem. Nor would it enhance the already exemplary source control program (which stops many toxic chemicals from ever going down the drain). The proposed treatment expenditure is huge: $1.1 billion is equivalent to $500-700 per year, per average household, in the core area for the next 50 years. The cost is similar to the annual cost per Victoria household of the entire City of Victoria Police Department.

Evidence-based policy requires evidence. Open government requires that citizens be informed. With these requirements in mind, we assert that the Ministry of Environment has a duty to commission and publish an independent, objective, cost-benefit study of the proposed land-based treatment option.