Community Blog

On Sunday I will be joining Canada’s first Walk for Reconciliation in Vancouver.

The walk has been organized by Reconciliation Canada, an organization dedicated to supporting all Canadians – indigenous and non-indigenous alike – to renew relationships, based on a shared understanding of our histories and our cultures. Reconciliation Canada was born from a vision of Chief Dr. Robert Joseph, Hereditary Chief of the Gwawaenuk First Nation and was established as a collaboration between the Indian Residential Schools Survivor’s Society and Tides Canada Initiatives Society, in order to initiate a dialogue among indigenous and non-indigenous peoples on reconciliation and on walking a better future together.

The Walk for Reconciliation is the final event of Reconciliation Week Vancouver 2013 and aims to demonstrate our joint commitment to build better relationships to achieve resilient, sustainable communities.

I invite you to join me as I proudly walk together with Tsartlip First Nations member and Interim Leader of the Green Party of BC, Adam Olsen, as well as Green Party MP, Elizabeth May and Vancouver Green Party City Councilor, Adriane Carr.

For more details please visit Reconciliation Canada’s official website: http://reconciliationcanada.ca/participate/walk-for-reconciliation/

BC Hydro can’t seem to stay out of the news, and on people’s minds. Over the past few weeks a number of constituents have contacted our community office with concerns about additional charges for opting out of a BC Hydro smart meter: If they chose to keep their old meter, would it cost them more per month? And if so, how much more?

We now know. BC Hydro has submitted letters to customers outlining a fee structure for keeping their old meter. Customers who do not want a smart meter will be charged an additional $35 monthly monitoring fee. Customers who have a smart meter but would like to turn off the radio transmitter will be charged a ‘one-time’ fee of $100 and a $20 monthly monitoring fee.

There are many people who have expressed their concerns about having a smart meter attached to their home. The position that I advocated for was that people should have the right to determine what is attached to their homes. The response from BC Hydro was to grant an opt-out option, which I am in favour of

Understandably, the two options–to either transition to a smart meter or to keep one’s original meter–have different costs associated with them for BC Hydro. Switching to a smart meter requires initial capital costs to purchase and install the meters but is relatively inexpensive when it comes to monitoring usage. Keeping an old meter, on the other hand, means no initial capital cost, but higher monitoring costs. My stance is that if these costs are incurred by the customer, they should adequately reflect the costs incurred by BC Hydro and should not be used to generate additional profit.

To charge a customer $35 a month to keep their old meter, when manual readings are traditionally done every 2 or 3 months, translates into customers paying between $70 and $105 per visit. This is outrageous. Several jurisdictions in the United States have created similar opt-out programs for smart meters and only charge their customers $10 to $12 per month, such as in Maine and California . There is also a low income fee structure in California which reduces customer costs from $75 to $10 initial fee, and from $10 to $5 for the monthly fee: a program BC Hydo should consider, or even better, the BC Government impose.

Even though letters sent out by BC Hydro indicate they are going ahead with the new charges, this still requires approval from the BC Utilities Commission.

I am urging the commission to carefully review the fees charged and options available in other jurisdictions, and not to approve the BC Hydro proposal.

Andrew Weaver

Below are links to information on smart meter programs in Maine and California in the United States, for those readers who would like further information on other jurisdictions:

Maine: http://www.cmpco.com/smartmeter/smartmeteroptions.html

California: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/164434.htm

Facts and Comments

Fact 1: The CRD’s proposed $783 million secondary treatment system involves building a single facility at McLoughlin Point. The biosolids would be transported over 17km in a newly constructed pipeline to the Hartland dump where resource recovery (energy production) is expected to occur. A significant component of the overall cost is associated with the construction of this pipeline.

My Comment: The high costs associated with constructing the pipeline between McLoughlin Point and Hartland dump are unnecessary and could be significantly reduced. For instance, the Federal government could allow the biosolids to be processed at Macauley Point on the vacant Department of National Defense land, rendering the pipeline significantly shorter. Alternatively, several proponents have requested a more distributed model that would allow local municipalities to address sewage treatment as they see best fit for their jurisdictions. Such systems could incorporate tertiary sewage treatment and therefore also address the real problems of marine toxins. These are just two examples of other viable options to save taxpayers money and better address the real issues from sewage.

Fact 2: The CRD proposal includes a redesign of the system so that the Oak Bay storm water/ sewage common pipe usage would only lead to raw sewage overflows on local beaches during rain events that, on average, occur once every 5 years.

My Comment: We live in the context of a changing climate with projected increases in extreme rainfall. The events in Calgary and on the east coast of the United States are just two examples of this. It is well-known that the frequency of extreme precipitation events will go up as the world continues to warm from increasing greenhouse gases. As such, rain events that currently occur once in 5 years, will likely occur more frequently, thereby rendering the current plan possibly insufficient.

Fact 3: The sewage treatment plan is funded jointly by the CRD, the provincial government and the federal government, and therefore has to factor in deadlines from each level of government. The CRD was originally mandated by the Provincial Government to implement sewage treatment by 2016 and continues to operate under this deadline. The Federal Government has set its deadline at 2020. In answers to questions I posed during the July 2013 provincial budget estimates, Minister of the Environment Mary Polak opened the door to extending the current 2016 completion date with a formal request from the CRD. This would allow for plans and construction to formally be pushed to the federal deadline of 2020, or potentially even longer if both levels of government were convinced a new proposal offered greater benefits. In addition, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Coralee Oakes noted that the government is also open to a request from the CRD for extending funding. At present $248 million is not going to be realized until the 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal years.

My Comment: There seems to be an unwillingness to reconsider the current sewage treatment proposal because of a perceived need to meet arbitrary deadlines. I call these deadlines arbitrary because it is within each government’s power to change those deadlines should they see fit. For instance, delaying the sewage treatment deadline to the federal government’s 2020 deadline would allow sufficient time to reconsider the current proposal in light of its shortcomings in order to find a more cost-effective solution that also addresses the problem of marine toxins.CRD Sewage Treatment Plan: Facts and Comments

My Assessment

Victoria clearly needs to deal with its sewage. We are dumping raw screened sewage into the ocean and that is unsustainable. However, the proposed solution appears rushed and constrained to meet completely artificial timing deadlines put in place by politicians and government bureaucrats. The question is not if we need sewage treatment but rather if there is something that can be done better given a little more time.

I would like to see municipal, provincial and federal governments agree to a 2020 deadline for implementation of sewage treatment. It is important that we build a system for the future using the latest technology and not a system from yesteryear that doesn’t actually address many of the environmental and fiscal sustainability issues we face. I would want to see an integrated liquid and solid waste management strategy put in place that includes a thorough examination of distributed systems, exploration of public-private partnerships, and industry led solutions.

The Capital Regional District (CRD) is currently considering a proposal for a $783 million sewage treatment facility at McLoughlin Point. This page will provide a concise overview of the issues surrounding sewage treatment and explain why a proposal is being considered. It will also highlight some of the concerns that have been raised about sewage treatment and the current proposal.

At present, Victoria is dumping raw, screened sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Such sewage contains a mixture of organic waste and marine toxins (pharmaceuticals, fire retardants, other toxins etc.). About 50% of the marine toxins are attached to the biosolids, the other 50% are mixed in with the liquid waste.

Numerous local ocean scientists (including some in my own department at UVic) have pointed out that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is well mixed and highly oxygenated. This means that the organic components of the waste dissipate and decay very rapidly.  But what also matters is the persistent discharge of marine toxins. These can move up the food chain and congregate in large predators. Continuing to release these into our environment is unsustainable.

The proposal currently under consideration is for a secondary sewage treatment system that would treat the organic waste. The remaining wastewater after secondary treatment would be discharged into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The discharged wastewater still contains about 50% of the marine toxins mentioned above. In other words, the proposed secondary treatment facility effectively deals with the organic waste (which is not, scientifically speaking, a problem because of our highly oxygenated waters) but doesn’t deal with the chemical waste (that is a problem). In order to also treat the chemical toxins, the CRD would need a tertiary treatment system.

Now by itself, science cannot prescribe policy solutions; it can only inform policy discussions. There are additional issues that the science does not answer that need to be recognized in the public debate. These include the facts that:

1. Funding for a new sewage treatment system has been secured from provincial and federal sources;
2. The existing sewage system does not meet current provincial legislation and federal Fisheries Act requirements;
3. The CRD sewage issue has become a sore point with the tourism industry;
4. The CRD is expected to grow significantly in the years ahead thereby increasing the amount of sewage discharged into the Strait;

There are also other environmental problems associated with wastewater in the CRD. These include the fact that storm water and sewage lines are shared in parts of Oak Bay. This means that in large rainfall events, raw sewage is released through outfalls onto some local area beaches.

In addition, much of our storm water run-off is discharged directly into local waters. This storm water is laden with toxins washed off our streets and driveways, and the run-off is not fully addressed by this current proposal.

Andrew joined over 80 community leaders, volunteers and generous donors at Our Place September 7 for a car wash fundraiser.  This event raised over $2,000.00 to support the important work done by Our Place Society.  Tours of the facility were given while local, provincial and federal politicians joined members of the Victoria Police, Firefighters, local media and community groups to wash cars for this great cause.

Our Place is a community service provider in Victoria, where transitional housing, nutritious meals and many supportive programs are offered in a safe and dignified environment for vulnerable citizens in our region. Our thanks and appreciation to City of Victoria Councillor Charlayne Thornton-Joe for organizing this event.