Re: “Many chances for sewage input,” editorial, July 15.
I agree with the editorial that “we have to get it right” on sewage treatment. A good decision requires sound information, can be successfully implemented and will have a positive impact.
To get it right means, first, that taxpayers must be heard. Since the current consultation began in May, a positive difference is occurring. Working through the issues will take time. The original Capital Regional District June 30 deadline was wishful thinking.
From the consultation, we know there is considerable talent in the public domain and wide support for tertiary treatment. Big challenges lie ahead.
While it is important to identify potential sites, it is equally important that detailed up-front planning occurs to minimize financial “surprises” such as those plaguing replacement of the Blue Bridge. Competent engineers know that to bring a project in on time and within budget, especially a large complex project, it requires a front-end engineering design (FEED) document, defined as “the stage of a project beyond conceptual design, but before detailed design.”
Knowing that a certain design feature is not feasible in the early planning stage means an easy solution. When the design flaw, however, is not noticed until significant financial commitments have been made, the solution is typically more expensive, time-consuming and a major source of budget overruns.
Intensive forethought is needed. The CRD will soon be deliberating on sewage-treatment location options. Is the planning to inform this decision-making of sufficient quality and depth to support a plus-or-minus-10 per cent project cost estimate? Has detailed (e.g. FEED) planning occurred?
Ray Travers
Victoria
