Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

CRD should consider tertiary treatment

Re: “Keep close eye on sewage plans,” editorial, Aug. 20. After reading the first three paragraphs, I assumed that an editorial written a year ago had somehow made its way into Tuesday’s paper.

Re: “Keep close eye on sewage plans,” editorial, Aug. 20.

After reading the first three paragraphs, I assumed that an editorial written a year ago had somehow made its way into Tuesday’s paper. For sure, a year later, it’s still a fact that those deciding to build a land-based sewage-treatment system are constrained by a provincial directive to do so and federal regulations prohibiting sewage discharge into the ocean.

But today, it’s also a fact that, over the past year, a well-informed, evidence-based group of environmentalists has emerged, one in sharp contrast to the initial opposition group supporting the current marine-based system. Yet the editorial seemed to be focused exclusively on this initial group.

The more recent group of opponents fully accepts the facts of the need for compliance with provincial and federal demands. But, unlike the editorial, it also considers today’s facts, such as Environment Minister Mary Polak’s invitation for the Capital Regional District to avail itself of flexibility in funding and completion deadlines. Or the fact that taking advantage of this 33-month window of flexibility would allow the CRD to design and build a tertiary system, possibly for less money than its proposed secondary system.

Taking on opponents of the CRD’s plan is fine. What’s irresponsible is to not clearly target today’s opponents and convincingly, if it can, counter their arguments calling for tertiary treatment by 2020.

John Farquharson

Victoria