Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Some cost savings prove to be expensive

Re: “CRD should take charge of sewage issue,” letter, Dec. 19. The writer correctly recommends that the Capital Regional District show some leadership in the current process of public consultation about this issue.

Re: “CRD should take charge of sewage issue,” letter, Dec. 19.

The writer correctly recommends that the Capital Regional District show some leadership in the current process of public consultation about this issue. He also calls for a solution “at minimum cost to CRD taxpayers.”

He also states “a centralized plant is the most cost-effective option.” That claim is unfortunate, because it is limited to considering the initial capital cost of a sewage solution rather than the lifetime cost.

The Times Colonist has reported numerous examples of large projects in which a saving of initial capital cost has led to huge extra costs.

The sewage plant in Halifax was probably about $10,000 less expensive because some electrical controls were located where they could be — and were — flooded. The plant also “saved” maybe $30,000 by having a backup generator that was not large enough to handle the load connected to it. The resulting disaster cost more than $12 million as well as horrible ecological damage.

The multibillion-dollar transit system in Vancouver recently suffered an expensive disaster because a modem failed. Arranging for redundant modem circuitry might have cost $5,000. Repairing the damage cost millions.

We need a sewage solution that has built-in redundancy of plants, pipes and critical components. A good solution will “cost” enough up-front to save us from a financial and ecological disaster during its service life.

David Stocks

Colwood