Représentations 0377-ANDERSON

Déposant : David Anderson

Communauté : Victoria

Déposé le : Décembre 1, 2010

Résumé :
La question du traitement artificiel terrestre des eaux usées de Victoria n’a rien à voir avec les populations de saumon rouge du Fraser. En tenant compte de l’ensemble des facteurs, on s’aperçoit que l’effet réel des émissaires d’évacuation de Victoria sur le saumon du Pacifique est minime, et que s’il en est, il ne peut être que positif. Aller de l’avant avec le traitement artificiel terrestre des eaux usées fera perdre des sommes d’argent qui pourraient être plus judicieusement investies dans les études scientifiques consacrées au saumon et aux océans. Si la Commission décide de tenir compte de cette question dans ses délibérations, elle devrait demander l’avis de véritables spécialistes du domaine.

Représentations :
November 17, 2010
The issue of artificial on-land treatment of Victoria's sewage has no significant relevance to the Fraser sockeye. However, I understand that it came up more than once at the Commission's Public Forum in Victoria and those promoting artificial on-land sewage treatment linked salmon declines to Victoria's sewage outfalls.
I have looked into every significant report on this issue over the past twenty years. There is no credible evidence that suggests an adverse linkage between Victoria’s sewage outfalls and Pacific salmon. The actual result of the present natural at sea system is a slight increase in the nutrients for plankton in the seawater of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In this manner these nutrients enter the food chain that ultimately ends up as food for salmon and other fish. These nutrients also assist in the growth of marine vegetation (kelp, etc.) which also assists in the salmon life cycle. Of course that is not the whole story. There are various unpleasant chemicals in any waste water stream, treated or otherwise. But the net effect, when all factors are taken into account, is that the current system has little impact on salmon and what there is can be expected to be positive.
The Cohen Commission could do the province and the country a favour by pointing out the irrationality of insisting on Victoria's sewage receiving artificial on-land treatment. Unless the decision is reviewed, we can expect to spend 750-1,200 million dollars on this--to the inevitable detriment of other measures, such as science work on salmon and oceans, which hasn't been done, largely because of cost. There is plenty of money for needed science work, provided we do not waste money in irrational ways.
Should the commission decide to consider this subject as part of their deliberations, I ask that you seek input from the people who are the actual experts in this field. To offer you a flavour of this discussion, from an international body that monitors marine pollution, I attach to this submission a 2008 editorial for review. Additionally, the commission can find more information on the Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria website at
Best regards,
David Anderson

Documents de Représentations :

File 1:

Marine Pollution Bulletin _08.pdf

Liste des commentaires

Nom: priscilla judd

Date de création: December 5, 2010

The solution to pollution is not dilution!

There is no excuse for pumping sewage into the ocean!

We don't need "scientific" evidence to know it's harmful to put sewage in the ocean - we can use common sense.

This is the same over used excuse that allows politicians to justify pollution: "it costs too much"

Well - Now there is an inexpensive solution - a primary sewage treatment - all natural, no chemicals or electricity and no multimillion dollar infrastructure - producing 99% clean water.

Victoria needs Vegetated Sand Beds System - Go to:

Now - there is no excuse! Please save the salmon for future generations.
thank you

Nom: Priscilla Judd

Date de création: December 12, 2010

please check out the following "google translate" links to see how the VSB system is cleaning up the third world

Nom: John Newcomb

Date de création: August 17, 2011

From my experience as a community environmental activist in Victoria (1984-85, chair Sierra Club Victoria Chapter, 1999-2002, chair Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce Environment Committee) with Victoria sewage treatment issues, I would agree completely with David Anderson's analysis of the shortcomings of the CRD sewage treatment plan so far. There has been NO interest in understanding the actual environmental impacts of Victoria's specific effluent in Victoria's specific marine discharge area, but only a reliance on less than relevant end of pipe approaches developed elsewhere.