Albert Sweetnam, Seaterra鈥檚 program director, recommends that we should be and are going to get on with the wastewater treatment program (鈥淚t鈥檚 time to move on with Seaterra program,鈥� Feb. 15).
We have been hearing this for more than five years since I wrote 鈥淣o to sewage plant at McLoughlin Point,鈥� published in the Times 91原创 Dec. 11, 2009, which argued that McLoughlin Point was not a good location for the plant.
Interesting that after my article appeared, the Capital Regional District chairman and others on the CRD board wrote articles stating that enough work had been done to enable the McLoughlin site to be used for the wastewater treatment plant.
The CRD sponsored a number of large, expensive ads in the fall of 2010, titled 鈥淎ll Things Considered,鈥� explaining that the search for a wastewater-treatment plant site led to reclamation of the former oil-storage site at McLoughlin Point, resulting in a more cost-effective, environmentally and socially responsible wastewater treatment system. The ads notified the public of all the work that had been done, including advising that the region was committed to an architecturally pleasing facility and that it would continue to refine the system, including trying to find a closer location to McLoughlin Point for the biosolids facility, which could reduce costs further.
McLoughlin Point is not the best site for the treatment plant and, contrary to Sweetnam鈥檚 position, we need to pause and re-evaluate what is planned, and reflect on some details of the project, including the location of the main treatment plant, costs and the process that is proposed, including the pumping of biosolids, a pipeline to the regional landfill site and a biosolids treatment plant many kilometres away from McLoughlin Point.
There is a strong case for elimination of the pumping of biosolids, the pipeline to the landfill site, the planned external biosolids treatment plant and the operating costs. This would save millions of dollars in capital costs and some operating costs.
There is no question that the McLoughlin Point site is too small, or the biosolids plant would have been built there. Other concerns include its location on the Victoria Harbour and whether the promise of an architecturally pleasing building can be kept. Plans that I have reviewed are anything but architecturally pleasing.
The McLoughlin site needs to be enlarged if the region is going to develop this site. Such expansion of the site would allow the elimination of pumping of biosolids and construction of an expensive pipeline and the biosolids plant at the landfill.
I have been advised by the person previously responsible for the treatment program that the reason the treatment plant was placed at the McLoughlin Point site was because it was the only site for sale on the water. They also advised that they did discuss with the Department of National Defence the need for additional lands, but were not successful in acquiring lands from the DND for expansion of the site.
In my view, not all has been done to acquire additional lands from DND to save millions of dollars. The premier should be requested to intervene with the prime minister on behalf of the region to present the case to acquire adequate DND lands to satisfy the site requirements for the treatment plant and the biosolids process in order to eliminate the pipeline and the processing plant at the landfill.
In addition, I strongly recommend that discussions should commence among the region, the premier and the prime minister before any more work is done on the project. If negotiations are not successful, the treatment plant should be relocated to another appropriate site to satisfy all of the above requirements.
Because of the size of this project and the extensive time and money already spent, a comprehensive review should be made to specifically reduce costs and to lessen the impact on taxpayers.
Donald Roughley, P.Eng., is a former Victoria city manager, a position he also held in Waterloo and Scarborough, Ont.
