More from the sordid Seaterra Biosolid files... https://youtube/watch?v=ZoGkS3mTgFU On Oct 30, 2013 the chair of the Seaterra Commission , Brenda Eaton came to CRD and stated: 1) A triple bottom line analysis which is what you have tasked us with doing, clearly shows that land based application is the best environmental and sustainability solution. 2) ..when we worked through the triple bottom line, as I say youve tasked us with, this is the best environmental decision, and we bring this forward to you because you have asked us to look at the triple bottom line and we also bring it forward so that as you wrestle with this issue, you clearly understand the implications from a financial perspective as well. From these two statements, it sounds like the Seaterra Commission recently and thoroughly analyzed all of the options for dealing with sewage sludge and came to the conclusion that land application was preferred after Seaterra had completed a triple bottom line analysis. To find out the reasoning behind their decision, I put in an FOI request to CRD for the TBL for the Biosolids option that Seaterra did and this is all that came back: theriteplan.ca/docs/140627_ATWELL_FOI_Biosolids_Reply.pdf The same 2009 analysis from Brown & Caldwell. I had to wait 45 days for this request to be filled and the document was on the CRDs website the whole time. City of Victoria would have just pointed me to the document. Here was their rationale but it was only backed by a 4 year old analysis: theriteplan.ca/docs/131022_Biosolids_Eaton_Letter.pdf The reasoning in the letter is highly subjective so the TBL is essential in the decision making. In Summary: Not only is the CRDs liquid waste plan 5 years out of date, so is its biosolids (sewage sludge) plan. How can Geoff Young have any confidence that the McLoughlin-Hartland plan is going to be the lowest cost for taxpayers when the design is 5 years out of date?
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:47:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015