As a fairly hardcore environmentalist, I was initially in favour of sewage treatment. However, as I checked the facts, in order to bolster my pro-sewage treatment stance, I was surprised to learn there are no scientific reports that state we need land-based sewage treatment in the CRD.
Proponents of sewage treatment point to the Scientific and Technical Review, published in 2006 (SETAC). But it does not say we need sewage treatment. It says we should "assess the impacts."
The Macdonald report, also published in 2006, stated that land-based sewage treatment was "one option" that could be explored.
The above is the sum total of the argument supporting sewage treatment.
However, we do have several highly respected scientists at the University of Victoria Department of Ocean Sciences, who have repeatedly stated the sewage-treatment facility is a bad plan, and if we want to spend money protecting the ocean environment, we should look elsewhere.
The scientific opinion appears firmly weighted against sewage treatment.
Privately, one city councillor admitted to me that this has nothing to do with science - just "optics."
Are we really going to spend close to a billion dollars, and shackle future generations with perpetual payments so we can solve a "problem" science says doesn't even exist?
© Copyright 2013