|
Submitter: David Anderson
Community: Victoria
Date Submitted: December 1, 2010
Summary:
The issue of artificial on-land treatment of Victoria's sewage has no significant relevance to the Fraser sockeye. The net effect of Victoria's sewage outfalls, when all factors are taken into account, is that it has little impact on Pacific salmon and what there is can be expected to be positive. Proceeding with the decision to implement artificial on-land sewage treatment will waste money that could be better spent on science work on salmon and oceans. Should the commission decide to consider this subject as part of their deliberations, it should seek input from the people who are the actual experts in this field.
|
Submission:
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 www.rstv.ca.
Best regards,
David Anderson
|
