Recently, by motion, I asked the Capital Regional District board to request both an independent analysis of the core area sewage-treatment project and a new Request for Expressions of Interest.
The analysis would have examined net environmental benefit and value for money, while the REI would have allowed alternative approaches to come forward.
Had the motion passed, the CRD鈥檚 Core Area Liquid Waste Committee would have determined whether to comply.
Since the motion failed (interestingly, only core-area committee directors were allowed to vote), it鈥檚 time to decide whether to press on or just let the current proposal proceed. The essential question is whether due diligence has been done.
To be specific: Have appropriate priorities been established to shape this project? Is the project consistent with broader regional sustainability plans such as the regional growth strategy? Has it been evaluated for net environmental gain and value for money? Have sufficient opportunities been provided for alternative approaches to come forward? And finally, has consultation and decision-making created public confidence and support?
In all cases, the answer is no. Undoubtedly, one priority is to meet federal and provincial requirements. But spending the better part of a billion dollars to build this project, with additional operating costs, should accomplish much more.
Most certainly, environmental gains should be maximized. Treatment should deal with emerging chemicals and provide high-quality effluent. The current project proposes only secondary treatment. Tertiary treatment, especially systems such as ultra-filtration, can provide much higher-quality effluent and more effective removal of chemicals.
Yes, the proposed plant could be upgraded to tertiary standards but when, and at what cost?
Even more important, resource recovery should be optimized. Climate change is likely the greatest threat humanity faces. Large projects in particular must aim to minimize net energy use, maximize energy recovery and minimize greenhouse gases.
Proponents of the current project point out that it does have some resource recovery and greenhouse-gas reduction. That鈥檚 like saying your car is fine because it has four wheels. With major infrastructure in remote locations, it鈥檚 unlikely that resource recovery and environmental gains are anywhere near maximized.
As for broad regional sustainability planning, the current project has been developed in relative isolation. Will it be a good fit? With limited environmental gains, it鈥檚 hard to see how it could be.
All of this raises questions such as: 鈥淛ust what are we getting for this huge expenditure?鈥� and 鈥淐ouldn鈥檛 we do better?鈥� They haven鈥檛 been adequately answered.
Yes, some analysis has been done, but largely by CRD consultants directed by staff firmly committed to the project. That鈥檚 simply not objective enough. An independent analysis of net environmental gain and value for money is needed.
A new REI that encouraged alternative proposals would also help to answer the legitimate questions swirling around this project. It鈥檚 virtually certain that designs featuring decentralized smaller plants could accomplish better environmental outcomes. Would they be financially competitive? Given reduced pumping, recent technological improvements and the value of energy recovered, it鈥檚 entirely possible they might be.
The more the public learns about this project, including snafus such as the Viewfield Road purchase, the more concerned and skeptical they become. They have a right to be concerned. Due diligence has not been done. It could have been done years ago when I first brought forward similar motions, but it wasn鈥檛.
It鈥檚 way past time to ensure our present choices are appropriate and defensible. The citizens of our region deserve no less.
Vic Derman is a Saanich councillor, CRD director and a member of the CRD Core Area Liquid Waste Committee.
