Re: “It’s time to move on with Seaterra program,” comment, Feb. 15.
Albert Sweetnam highlights the negative effects of local groups aiming to dismantle or delay the Seaterra program. However, there are concerned citizens like me who do not wish to obstruct the program but will continue to question the components of the current treatment plan.
Sweetnam notes that the independent peer-review team identified a centralized model as the best choice. In fact, they recommended a single combined treatment and biosolids disposal plant site. They did not endorse the current 18-kilometres-separated McLoughlin/Hartland scheme.
The peer-review team also recommended against incorporating resource-recovery elements into the implemented treatment plan, pointing out that additional public costs would be inevitable and that revenues could not be counted on without signed customer contracts. Does Seaterra have a contract to supply 1,000 homes with biogas heating that ensures future revenues exceeding taxpayer costs?
Legislation for the wastewater commission mandates committed public consultation plans. The “strategic communications plan” now being adopted by Seaterra for the next four years slides around the legislation and does not even mention public consultation.
If Sweetnam and the commission have their way, future public involvement could be reduced to items like colour schemes for new pump stations.
Back in August 2013, a Times Colonist editorial headline said: “Keep close eye on sewage plans.” True then and even more true in the months ahead. Many uncertainties regarding taxpayer costs and risks and community impacts are yet to be addressed.
David Langley
Saanich
