Re: “Unity needed on sewage issue,” editorial, May 29.
The Times Colonist editorial suggested that political unity was needed, whereas this is a scientific issue, and requires a science-based assessment.
A U.S. precedent shows that senior governments can and do allow exemptions for safe and effective marine-based treatment.
When, as Canada’s regulators have done, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to impose a single treatment standard on the whole country, resistance by coastal communities like Victoria resulted in Congress ordering a review of the regulations. As a result, U.S. regulators were found to have been overzealous, there were amendments to the regulations and about 50 coastal communities were exempted from replacing their marine treatment systems.
Congress declared that the evidence in support of the practice of marine treatment “is overwhelming.”
If there were hard evidence that our current system has caused just one case of human illness or one contaminated fish, then the panic to meet a deadline would be justifiable. Given the lack of any such evidence, categorization of our system as high-risk is arbitrary, unsupportable and crying out to be challenged. Appropriate categorization to low-risk would extend deadlines by 20 years.
We need that extra time to make a science-based assessment of whether construction of a land-based treatment complex — secondary or tertiary — is wise, given that it will add to the neglected escalating climate-change catastrophe.
John Newcomb
Secretary, on behalf of the board
The Association for Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment
