The potential for treating sewage using long outfalls became obvious as soon as they came into being in the 1950s. The outfall is assembled on land, towed to sea and sunk. Before that, pipes were joined one to the next by divers. Treatment plants dilute the things that do damage and the sea was going to do that much better and there were five other benefits. Secondary plants rely on mechanical and electrical devices and avoidance of human error (if Victoria had relied on secondary treatment and short outfalls, one result would have been warning signs about swimming); nutrients, the bottom rung on life’s ladder, are not lost; there is no plant to run; no sludge to dispose of and no land needed (People who want to sell sludge to farmers have not tried to do so). The substantial money saved is available to protect the environment elsewhere. A British Royal Commission compared the system with secondary treatment and deduced that it ‘could be better’ where conditions were good and ours are ideal.

The impact of our discharges does not warrant land based treatment in the opinion of the oceanographers and MHOs who have been monitoring them all these years. There are no exceptions to that and no others are as well qualified to judge.

Compare that impact with say Emory Creek; a B.C. History article by historian Alan Long states: “… at low water one only has to dig down three to four feet in gravel of many of the abandoned gold mining bars on the Fraser to find mercury.”

The sewage plume sometimes reaches the surface. It is a mile offshore and massively diluted. In a land-based plant that would be replaced by raw sewage in an open tank with air blasting through, leading to pathogenic aerosols by the million. That used to be thought not to matter but an opinion by medical researchers at the University of Pisa is that “such aerosols may in fact represent a health hazard for plant workers and nearby residents alike.” There are no health risks now.

Statistics from 2007 from the British Columbia Workers Compensation Board show that in that one year, 61,394 workers suffered short-term disablities, but 4,483 suffered long-term disabilities. The risks on our $1.2 billion contract should have been assessed by a statistician and presented to the public.

A rough estimate can be derived by comparing the provincial gross domestic product of $192.5 billion (Statistics Canada 2007) with our contract at $1.2 billion.

That comes to 0.625 per cent and applied to the 4,483 figure above gives us 28 with a broken back or missing arm or who knows what. Plant operation means health and safety risks would continue in perpetuity.

Consider the pollution caused and energy used in constructing a $120,000 low cost house; the steel mill for the reinforcing rod; the forest for tree cutting, transport to the saw mill, to the dealer and to the site; blasting at the limestone quarry, transfer to the concrete plant, roasting to make cement, etc.etc. and multiply it by 10,000 to match our $1.2 billion contract. That has all been ignored.

The scheme is damaging and should not go ahead even if it were free. The greatest environmental change the public would suffer would be from the three years equipment exhaust.

Ted Dew-Jones is a retired engineer who lives in Victoria.