Phase II Sewers - Exercise Your Minds, Then Your Democratic Rights!

The following piece was written as a 'Comment' on Lantzville Log Society Chairperson and intrepid reporter, Brian Blood's, report of May 2,5,8/09 ['SAVE HUDDLESTONE ROAD BEACH ACCESS/COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4TH 2009/TROUBLE IN BEACH FRONT COMMUNITY'] on the Log Blog (http://www.thelog.ca/). Since that blog is moderated (i.e., someone with the paper has to 'approve' the 'comment' before it will show on the blog), it remains to be seen whether it will or not. My Blog, on the other hand, is unmoderated so you can make whatever comments you feel are appropriate - I hope it will help to further the discussion.

Brian,
While I can certainly appreciate the concern expressed by the various presenters/residents at the May 4th Regular Council Meeting, as well as the contributors to this submission, one would be foolish not to expect that there would be some negative impacts of bringing collector sewers to Lantzville - the physical installation required is just one of those (some have already experienced this with the Phase I installations). Some of it can be mitigated with the appropriate expenditure of funds but, only to a point. This is just one of the reasons one needs to be very sure of their personal justification for wanting collector sewers.
There is much mention in your piece about protecting/respecting the OCP and, while this extensive document has some worthwhile aspects to it, it was agreed by 94% of those expressing either a formal written or spoken opinion at the Public Hearing that it was flawed in at least three major aspects - the significant density it would allow, its extreme generosity towards developers and the mega-project Lantzville Foothills development inclusion. You should remember that 'support' for the OCP was fabricated by the Mayor using his oft-repeated belief that the 'silent majority' is with him and Council - the very thing that you now latch onto in your argument regarding the interpretation of a 'negative' referendum. The current provincial government changed the rules and added the "50% of assessed value" requirement (prospective developers/owners of larger, more valuable landholdings, also get an 'extra' say)
I, for one, appreciate the fact that you attend most of our Council Meetings and offer your impressions in the Log for interested residents to peruse. Unfortunately, you are also one of those persons who appears to have jumped on the sewer bandwagon before you looked, stating publicly that you felt the issue was a "no-brainer". It now would appear that there is a need/use for our brains after all. You mention that this assault on our beach is especially troubling since we don't have a waterfront park but I wonder if you could remind us what your position was when the community had the opportunity, for about $59/yr./household, to purchase our very own 2 acre park on Sebastion Road? Before we try to have a 'fair' referendum (regrettably, not easy in this community) on the use of the beach access, shouldn't we have had a 'fair' referendum on sewers in Lantzville, all of Lantzville, as was proferred by Mayor Haime now oh so long ago?!
While it is true that the proposed sewage pump station at the end of Huddlestone Road, while being available for subsequent phases would be funded by the Phase II property owners, this is not unlike the situation where Phase I property owners (including yourself) have paid for much of the trunks and the beach interceptor which would be used to carry Phase II sewage to the treatment plant - nothing really that unusual there.
I have devoted hundreds of hours over the past 3 1/2 years to try and inform residents of what is going on 'behind the scenes' in Lantzville - hey, isn't that something that a local paper like the Log could be doing? Residents who are interested can access my 'Chutzpah' [defn: unbelievable gall] blog at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com - unfortunately, just as the Log Blog has experienced, Lantzville still doesn't seem ready to have frank and open discussions about issues that affect us. I would love to hear from any residents who have questions or concerns and are willing to invest some time in working to reach a consensus.
If the 'press' tried and had at least as much success as I did, you would have learned that the District didn't meet the criteria for the infrastructure grants (taxpayer's money) totalling $5.6 million. I am sure that you can understand that this leaves the entire program (which is based on limited funds being used to solve the most pressing, proven problems) in disrepute. The refusal of Lantzville's Chief Administrative Officer and Mayor to answer my specific questions about the District's eligibility for infrastructure funds for sewage collection has launched me on a two and a half year effort to obtain those answers. Since higher levels in the 'food chain' have also declined to answer or have taken many months to provide any form of response, what has become clear is that everyone is now ducking their responsibility and trusting that stonewalling will save the day - never a good sign for democracy!
I have been trying to get people to realize that the decision to bring sewers into a community is something that requires a great deal of thought and discussion. It is easy to see why large landowners would want sewers since it brings them one significant step closer to subdividing but individuals need to think very carefully as to why they should 'sign on'. The very first decision that needed to be made was why we felt we needed sewers in the first place, based on scientific, verifiable information.
Without conclusive proof that the fecal coliforms have been found in some of our ditches are coming predominantly from septic tanks, the District's contention that this is all about our health, is just so much 'smoke'. Although the District was required by their infrastructure funding application to provide this information and conduct a survey of individual properties ("all... applications must provide a documentary report detailing the nature and extent of individual failures in a survey which includes water, soil, wastewater and groundwater sampling and analysis") and they attested to doing so, they didn't and the province has now let them get away with it (twice!!). The head of the government department doing the evaluations for the applications has finally admitted that, in their opinion, the 'septic failure rate' in Phase I & Phase II is somewhere between 5 and 25% (in other words, they don't know - the Ministry of Health's own records show 7 & 23 repairs, respectively, over a fairly recent 9-year period), with 25% being the minimum threshold under the program criteria. So, that leaves the other main reason why sewers are introduced - development. We already know that Lantzville Projects and the Foothills have happily signed on, providing $981,000 to 'piggyback' on Phase I to cover the installation of their pipes and up-sizing trunks/interceptors in that area. Our Urban Containment Boundary area has already been increased from 2% to 32%, meaning that almost a third of the land area within Lantzville is eligible to be supplied with sewer and water and developed commensurately.
Given that these residents are now facing significant costs (even though several councillors/past councillors will be happy to tell you how 'cheap' our system is going to be compared to selected others), they need to carefully consider their situation. What is the expected remaining life of their current system? What would be required to repair it should it fail and how much is that likely to cost? How much is the proposed Phase II system going to cost them in total - don't listen to all the 'noise' around you, talk to people who do this for a living and others who have already been through it (Phase I/Barclay Crescent [French Creek]). Expect that the quarterly operating cost (which isn't part of the binding 'referendum') will increase [UPDATE 13 02 25: at their Regular Meeting, Council voted to increase the minimum annual sewer user fee by $108 from $168 to $276 (a 64.3% increase) for 2013, a further $64 (23.2%) to $340 for 2014 and another $30 (8.8%) to $370 for 2015 - don't say I didn't warn you! Although secondary treatment is the minimum level that municipally collected sewage being discharged to water should be treated to (we were already supposed to be there back in 1998!!), the significant operating cost increases of this improvement from 'enhanced' primary will begin to show in 2016, with user fees eventually settling in the $500 range (on top of $500-600/yr for 'capital' costs). Further confirmation of how much of a 'sell-job' collector sewers was from the 'get-go' in Lantzville, this from the CoW comments - "(m)ust be careful not to make the costs of connecting to sewer more expensive than maintaining individual septic systems", in other words, the sewer user fees were/continue to be manipulated by Council to get you to make the 'right' decision] and that you will use more water. Do not let fear or other people interests/agenda make this decision for you - exercise your mind along with your democratic rights!
On a final note, I am very concerned about how rampant self-interest has made us much less open to discussion and much less civil to each other. I am not trying to sell anyone anything and I will not make a cent as a result of their decision, one way or the other. My personal opinion is that those who throw in with people who would use misinformation and exaggeration to achieve an end reflect badly on all of us and are providing a very poor example for their children. Council has an agenda, the Log has an agenda and even I have one. Mine is to do what I can to get people to not allow others to do their thinking for them. We're still waiting for that in-depth sewer article that you had promised to write for the Log, it is truly unfortunate that you didn't take up an investigation of the whole issue of sewers for Lantzville long ago and pressed for the whole community to be involved in the decision. I guess it comes down to whose ox is being gored.

Mainstream Media May Often Be Wrong But They're Tenacious!

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Harbour City Star because, when we are making decisions involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure projects, it is important that we have access to factual information and not just so much talk to advance someone else's agenda. Notice that the Canwest/Global (now Postmedia) newspaper didn't like the very valid criticism of their past poor performance in this regard in the last paragraph and so deleted it from the letter that was actually published.

Dear Editor,
The unattributed piece, Sewers improved in Lantzville, The Star, Wed., April 30th, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of reporting. If it was provided by government, surely you have realized by now that even they (you know - "for the people, by the people") have their own agendas and their communications are specifically designed to further them.
For example, the "laying of a sewer pipe along the community's foreshore from its border with Nanaimo north to Oar Road" was only a part of the $3.6 million public expenditure, (one that was completed BEFORE the affected properties had even been asked to approve their 1/3 share) with the distribution of smaller collector pipes throughout an area of 208 (not 225 as reported) homes and businesses and a sewage lift station comprising the bulk of it.
Since it is the fields which normally fail in septic systems and the tanks remove about 40% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 60% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 5-10% of the pathogens, it is irresponsible and just downright wrong to write that "(t)he problem of raw sewage leaking into open ditches from septic fields in Lantzville, where most residences are not hooked into the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system [in fact, none were at the time] has alarmed residents for years". Not one piece of factual evidence has ever been provided to support that claim or level of concern.
It is uninformed and incorrect articles like yours which are the cause for alarm. Remember when your sister paper, the Nanaimo Daily News, ominously reported some 10 years ago that Lantzville was "literally a cesspool" and sewers were "criminally overdue"? One would have thought we'd all be dead by now!

(Septic) Field or Communication Failure?!?

A colleague with extensive experience constructing wastewater treatment facilities says they are 10% technology and 90% politics. The intense desire to DO SOMETHING about water quality may push... sewerification onward.... and that SOMETHING may turn out to be an expensive education in the way NOT to take care of areas where septic tanks work fine with a little care.
Art Ludwig

More Uninformed Statements Made About Lantzville and SewersMr. Scott continued by noting that sewer was needed, commented that Parksville/Qualicum Beach had a referendum that failed. The Province then mandated sewer. Jan. 22/07 Council Minutes
Dave Scott, former Trustee/Councillor; if he's talking about Barclay Cres. (French Creek) then here is the real story, see http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms/wpattachments/wpID1310atID1458.pdf
Mr Blood continued by noting that without sewers property owners would be looking at tens of thousands of dollars for septic remediation. Feb. 12/07 Council Minutes
Brian Blood, Chair - Lantzville Log Society/Log Council 'reporter'. I show you the sources of my numbers, where did he get his information from?

This was a virtual environmental crisis. It wasn't a pretty sight in the winter in the city (sic) of Lantzville to see that the water would actually leech out — the rainwater, and we had lots this year — of the sewer systems and drain into the open ditches. It was a horrible health hazard, and now that's being addressed.
Ron Cantelon, Nanaimo-Parksville MLA/former Nanaimo councillor/former realtor
Feb. 17/07 Hansard; http://http://www.roncantelonmla.bc.ca/

In his 'Colin's Comments', dated August 17, 2005, Mayor Haime writes "(f)or sewage treatment there are definitely systems out there that can handle 150 units of seniors housing."

In his paid advertisement in the first edition of the 'new' Lantzville Log, Councillor Brian Dempsey writes "(w)ithout sewers, we cannot build seniors' housing or anything else." In his second election flyer, distributed about Nov. 15th, Councillor Dempsey also writes, "New lots cannot be created smaller than 2.5 acres unless the lots are on community sewer. This puts the municipality in a position of not being able to meet the housing needs for seniors or anyone else."
So, are Lantzville residents clear on that then or does there seem to be just a wee bit of confusion amongst some members of Council as to what is or is not possible with respect to seniors' housing? Seems to me if a 250 student private school (Aspengrove) can be built using a sewage treatment plant and in-ground distribution field, so could limited seniors' housing (say, 35 units, subject to suitable soils). The decision to require BOTH community water and sewers to subdivide below 1 ha (2.47 acres) is one made by Lantzville council through the Official Community Plan (OCP), NOT
the Ministry of Health (Vancouver Island Health Authority - VIHA)! If you still have doubts, go have a look at the Timberstone Estates development on Northwest Bay Road in Nanoose Bay (1/2 acre lots on community water and septic tanks).

I have always found it curious that we are told we need to bring in sewers so we can have senior's housing so that those who love this community can continue to live here yet, in doing so, we not only change the community so drastically that many of them won't want to live here anymore but we drive others (families) away, as well.

Councillor, Douglas K. Parkhurst, in his second election campaign flyer (received Nov. 17/05), on the second page under 'Truth' writes that "CMHC estimates the cost of a Septic system can vary between $12,000 to over $20,000." What we should be talking about here is the repair of a septic system, not installing a brand new one, and I am still at a loss as to why our elected representatives keep throwing out so many different numbers when there is significant local data available (at least 60 local systems have been repaired over the past 10 years or so and we could always ask 'local son', Danny Negrin, who has done a lot of these types of repairs - why should his experience only be used to support the implementation of sewers?). A Lantzville resident has spoken at length to three area contractors and found that the 'typical' range for septic field repair was $3,000 - 7,000 [2005$], replacement of an entire system being more. In his report titled, "Repair Options for Failed Onsite Sewage Systems", Erwin Dyck, Land Use Consultant, VIHA, provides a range of costs of $5,000 to $14,000 for the complete replacement of a system, with costs possibly going as high as $35,000 for the very rare case. CMHC is a national entity so, even if the numbers were for the repair of septic systems, they likely wouldn't be particularly relevant to Lantzville. [UPDATE 08 02 25] Councillor Dempsey, at their regular council meeting, took the opportunity to add his 'two cents worth' and was more than happy to inform council that a new home in Lantzville has recently "spent approximately $22,000 for a new pressurized septic system which shows how good a deal residents received with the sewer system." If this cost is, in fact, real then it may be that that particular homeowner in those particular circumstances would have been financially better off to have had access to a sewer system. However, that does NOT mean that all, current Lantzville homeowners would be in the same situation (e.g., the resident who spent approx. $3000 to redo his gravity system) or that they would want the added density that always comes with sewers. I still find it astonishing that Lantzville council continues to 'cherry pick' septic/sewer costs in their justification for sewers - if they were being honest with residents, they would quote a range and an average and then let homeowners determine which number to use in their personal deliberations.

Councillor Parkhurst has also recently been overheard musing about how the Ministry of Health will 'shut us down' if we don't solve our 'septic problem'. Many of you will remember that this is the same threat that was trotted out almost 10 years ago during the last 'need for sewers' era of Lantzville Projects. It has always puzzled me that the Ministry of Health would apparently rather use their powers to force us onto sewers (I don't know of a single place where this has happened - on the contrary, they have/are being sued for allowing municipal treatment plants to exceed permit levels, in some cases, for years) than to help us find and solve those problems that we do have. They do seem to prefer to spend their time writing letters in support of sewers.
Members of Council apparently wouldn't know a fecal coliform if it jumped up and bit them in the butt and they seem blissfully unaware that it is not the coliforms that typically cause problems, they are only an indicator of the likely presence of other, possibly harmful bacteria (salmonella, streptococci, typhus and cholera). However, the relationship between what we observe (fecal coliforms) and what else may be present (the above-mentioned pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa) is not by any means fixed, and can vary by a factor of 10 or even 100. They also seem impervious to the fact that all warm-blooded animals produce fecal coliforms, including dogs (23 million per gm of wet feces), cats (7.9 million), deer, seagulls (368 million), cattle (.25 million), horses and humans (13 million). Based on a set of assumptions, I have calculated that, in a single day, the dogs not picked up after in Lantzville would contribute in the order of 987,000,000,000 fecal coliforms to our local environment. While some additional sampling has been done to try and infer the source of the fecal coliform in some of our ditches, the best the latest EBA engineering report could do was to 'suggest' that they come from human sources. Koers & Associates, the District's sewer engineers, offered in their report that "failing septic fields are likely (emphasis is mine) contaminating local area ditches and the waterfront."

To give you some kind of idea of the 'science' behind this report (which, based on the coliform data attached appears to have been written in '92 or early '93) their prediction of "hundreds of failing sewage disposal systems before the year 2000" appears to have come up woefully short (their own data indicates 60 repaired systems from approx. 1996 - 2005).

To add yet another perspective, Environment Canada reports that the 3 main causes of beach closures in Lantzville are, in order of their significance, surface run-off, rural run-off and then failed septic fields. The difficulty is that we don't know how much of the 'problem' can be attributed to each of these but we do know that only the failed septic fields will be helped by collector sewers. I informed Council of my findings at their Sept. 26/05 meeting so they have certainly had enough time to do the necessary testing to determine how much of the problem is from septic systems. The only document I have seen, which purports to definitively link the fecal coliform samples to failed septic systems, is a three-page unsigned and undated 'report' which the Ministry of Health, whose letterhead it is written under, has been unable to determine the source of.

So, based on this tenuous connection between coliform in some ditches and, on average, 7 reported failures/yr., we're marching 'full steam ahead' to sewerize most of Lantzville at an up-front cost of thousands of dollars to each household with annual operating costs in the hundreds of dollars and development pressure that just won't quit!?

Be under no delusions about it - in the absence of solid proof of the relative contribution of failing/failed septic systems, this becomes about supplying infrastructure to allow major development while having the taxpayers (Lantzville, provincial and federal - hey, we're those too!) pick up the brunt of the cost. Consider for a moment Lantville Projects previous development proposals for their Ware Road property:

1996: 356 housing units + 75,000 sq. ft. commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, no 'latecomers' fees (charges for us to connect to 'their' pipe)
1997: 329 housing units + 77,000 sq. ft. commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, no 'latecomers' fees
1997: 206 housing units + 2 acres of land set aside for commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, 'latecomer's' fees
2005: OCP - 400 housing units + ???? sq. ft. commercial; $250,000, no 'latecomers' fees and no sewer DCC's
Therefore, if I were one of their investors, I would be doing a serious ‘happy’ dance!
Lastly, with regard to MLA Cantelon's statement to the Legislature, if such a thing were actually occurring, wouldn't any rational person expect that their provincial government, through the Ministry of Health and the powers given to them, would require an immediate investigation and remedy?

But, for heaven's sake, don't take my (or their) word for it, do your own investigating - talk to neighbours who have had repairs, search the internet, etc. A good place to start would be http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/E/199904565.html and http://lakes.chebucto.org/H-2/bst.html. It really is in your own best interest!