The eastside liquid waste committee has made considerable progress toward a sewage solution.
Project goals and principles have been agreed upon, including: optimizing climate-change mitigation, maximizing resource recovery, considering integrating other parts of the waste stream and minimizing life-cycle costs. Also, extensive public consultation has identified general support for these goals and potentially viable sites.
These are all good things, but we are at a critical juncture if we are to finally “get things right.” The defunct McLoughlin Point project failed on zoning, but there were other serious process concerns. Early in the past project’s life, a decision was made to go with a centralized plant at Macaulay Point, then McLoughlin.
Effectively, the investigation’s scope was severely narrowed, and growing citizen concern focused on whether a different approach, such as a distributed system built around resource recovery, could provide better environmental outcomes and lower life-cycle costs. Unfortunately, broad investigation of possible outcomes never really took place, and citizen concern remained about a project that was likely far from optimal.
Now, we run the risk of “deja vu all over again.” Our proposed direction would have one consulting or engineering firm design two options: a centralized plan for the Rock Bay area and some sort of distributed system. Eventually, an option would be picked and opened for private-sector bidding.
This approach once again severely limits the scope of investigation. Will the consultant or engineering firm provide projects with the best environmental outcomes and the lowest life-cycle costs? Who knows? With no available comparison, the question can’t be answered. We could spend a great deal of money while achieving far less than the best possible.
We must open up this process to private industry’s best and brightest ideas. Start with a high-level request for expressions of interest built around project goals and principles. Essentially, you’re saying to industry: “Here’s what we wish to accomplish. What’s your best and cheapest way of meeting our goals?”
From the responses, quickly narrow down to the best three to five alternatives, evaluate them fully, and put the desired approach out to bid. It needn’t be a lengthy process and might be faster than the narrow approach currently suggested. Would industry respond? Almost certainly, if they knew a fair approach like this would be used.
Broadly canvassing the private sector would allow the “best and brightest” ideas to emerge. In turn, citizens could be confident they are getting the best possible outcome and full value for money.
It’s likely some designs would be innovative and outstanding in achieving substantial environmental benefit at minimal life-cycle cost. One provider has already suggested an integrated waste-stream approach that could, among other things, offer climate-change benefits equivalent to taking 20,000-plus cars off the road, avoid infrastructure costs, and produce high-level sewage treatment for taxpayers at little or no net cost.
Is that design the ultimate answer? Without canvassing broadly and careful evaluation, it’s impossible to say, but similar things are already in place or being planned in other jurisdictions.
Without question, the suggested benefits are astounding and certainly worthy of careful consideration. This sewage-treatment project is far too large, far too important and potentially far too expensive to be allowed to proceed without the best and brightest solutions being on the table. I hope we will realize this and act accordingly.
Vic Derman is a Saanich councillor and CRD director, a member of the core area liquid waste committee, and vice-chairman of the eastside wastewater treatment and resource recovery select committee.
