When city councils listen, good things can happen

When city councils listen, good things can happen

The story of a Vancouver Island municipal infrastructure project, delayed for over a decade, appears headed for a happy ending.

In the 1990s, the City of Campbell River planned to upgrade and replace a key sewer force-main pipe that serves the southern portion of the city. The 6-plus kilometer pipe originally served a much smaller population, so it required upsizing. Also, given its age — about 50 years old — the pipe had begun to fail, causing leaks.

City officials considered starting with a 1.5 kilometer stretch where the pipe sits on the beach and is vulnerable to winter storms.  But there were challenges in arriving at a final concept, and funding issues. So they started with the more southern sections, which could also be incorporated into a highway renewal project through Willow Point.

Engineering studies proposed a variety of options for the section on the beach, including twinning the pipe and covering it with concrete to protect it from erosion. The city council of the day liked this idea, especially because it included the potential for a pedestrian walkway on top of the encasement.

Thank goodness the city didn’t dismiss the residents’ concerns and push the project ahead anyway.

But when the concept was presented to the community, it didn’t sit well with nearby residents. The city council listened to the residents’ concerns, and focussed resources on replacing the other sections of the pipeline.

Around 2008, a harsh winter storm washed out sections of the Old Island Highway near Oyster Bay.  This caused city staff to notice an increase in the wear and tear on the sea walk and to begin to understand the potential effects of sea level rise, climate change and the impact to the foreshore.

When the city planners turned their attention back to that 1.5 kilometers of sewer pipe, the city’s only sewer force-main pipe located on a foreshore, they realized the original plan had not taken into account the potential impacts of sea level rise and the increasing severity of winter storms.

The world was a different place in the late 1990s. Climate change hadn’t entered the discussion about municipal infrastructure. Fortunately, design standards are continually being updated to address changing conditions.

City staff studied the expected impacts of sea level rise and determined that the marine foreshore environment is likely to undergo significant changes in the next 100 years. As a result of these anticipated changes, staff now recommends that proper consideration be given to the placement of any critical infrastructure within the marine foreshore environment.

Campbell River staff have also determined that it’s a comparable cost to place the force-main within the highway structure and out of the marine foreshore. Moving the pipe overland will also likely result in reduced operating costs as the anticipated changes to the marine foreshore occur in the coming years.

Staff are now working on a report that summarizes these new developments and a plan to move the sewer pipe out of the foreshore. They will present it to City Council in the near future.

So, some people with a self-interest triggered a fortuitous delay of what to some seemed like a good idea in the 1990s, but which would have actually been a serious mistake.

Thank goodness the city didn’t dismiss the residents’ concerns and push the project ahead anyway.

Thanks in part to neighbors who opposed the project, and thanks to a city council that took the residents’ concerns seriously, the delay provided time for a better plan to emerge, one based on new and emerging scientific data.

Exposing the misleading spin on the Comox pump station

Comox resident George Le Masurier has responded to a post on the Comox Valley Regional District website. The CVRD post attempts to discredit Le Masurier’s recent op-ed article in the Times-Colonist.


The CVRD has posted on their website a response to my op-ed article in the Victoria Times-Colonist. Unfortunately, parts of their letter are false because they claim I said things that I did not say.

First, the CVRD suggests in their second paragraph that I stated the pipeline “is failing as stated by Mr. Le Masurier.” It’s a false statement.

I did not use the word “failing.” I said it is deteriorating, and that’s a huge difference.

Of course the pipeline is deteriorating. It’s 35 years old and had an expected life of 50 years when first installed. It has to have deteriorated, but to what degree I did not say. (Nor do I believe the CVRD knows.)

Also, the CVRD plans to replace not only the Willemar Bluffs section, but the remaining section of the pipeline by 2029, and have it in their capital plan to do so. Why would they replace the remaining section if it is as good as new? It’s axiomatic that anything in less than new condition has deteriorated.

It’s a fallacious straw man argument.

Second, in their third paragraph, they said “contrary to the statement made by Mr. Le Masurier, the CVRD completed a Sewer Master Plan for the entire Comox Valley.” Again, putting words into my mouth.

I did not say the CVRD lacked an SMP for the entire Comox Valley. I actually said the CVRD was applying a band-aid approach “instead of creating a NEW sewerage master plan for the entire Comox Valley.”

Again, this is a huge difference. I acknowledge the CVRD has an SMP, and my words indicate so. How could they create a NEW plan if they didn’t have an old one? It’s simple logic.

Another fallacious straw man argument.

Third, in their sixth paragraph, the CVRD says, “Mr. Le Masurier suggests that there has been independent analysis completed to show long-term costs savings by upgrading the Courtenay and Jane Place pump stations. The CVRD did not complete this analysis ….”

This is objectionable and misleading for two reasons. One, it implies there may or may not be an independent analysis, calling the veracity of its existence into question; and, two, it tries to imply that I suggested the CVRD “completed” or solicited this analysis and they deny having done so. Again, I did not say the CVRD had anything to do with the analysis.

A project controller who does cost analysis for a major diamond mine north of Yellowknife — and lives in Comox — prepared a detailed analysis of the potential cost savings if the CVRD upgraded the Courtenay pump station and replaced all the pipe immediately. He presented it to the CVRD sewage commission in person. But a Comox director voted against their staff looking at the analysis because it would complicate things.

And that leads me to a final point. It’s true the CVRD formed an Advisory Committee, but only after (and probably because) the neighborhood protested the Beech Street site. I should have edited out the word “eventually.”

However, the bigger issue here is that the CVRD ignored the committee’s recommendations.

The committee considered five alternate sites. The committee gave its #1 recommendation to upgrading the Courtenay pump station and replacing all the pipe now. It rated Beech Street last. It did so, as the CVRD says in its post, because they found the top recommendation too expensive.

But the truth is, the CVRD doesn’t know for sure because they have not done a comprehensive financial analysis, or an environmental analysis, of this option, to my knowledge. Nor have they bothered to consider the independent analysis prepared for them (see my third point, above.)

(It’s important to note that the committee included an elected official from Courtenay, Comox and the CVRD, and one staff person from each jurisdiction, and three citizens. The citizens were outnumbered 2-to-1, and the committee still rated the Courtenay upgrade as #1.)

I don’t mind a good argument, and the CVRD is entitled to defend its position. But I do mind when someone falsely puts words into my mouth in order to spin the facts in their favor.

Victoria isn’t the only battleground on sewage

Victoria isn’t the only battleground on sewage

By George Le Masurier —

While the Capital Regional District slowly moves toward consensus on where to locate one or more sewage treatment plants, another wastewater infrastructure battle is just beginning further up Vancouver Island.

In the Comox Valley, strong disagreements have arisen over how to replace a deteriorating 35-year-old sewer pipeline that was unfortunately constructed through the foreshore of the Courtenay River estuary, under a regional park and along the foot of the iconic Willemar Bluffs.

Neither controversy should surprise anyone: siting a public facility within a developed urban area presents unique technical and political difficulties that can only be overcome by extraordinarily skillful political leaders solely focused on the greater good.

But in the Valley, a questionable siting process has led to a short-sighted plan that harms both taxpayers and the environment.

It’s remarkable that provincial agencies allowed the City of Courtenay and the Town of Comox to build a pipeline that carries raw sewage along the foreshore of several environmentally sensitive areas enroute to a treatment plant. Concerns about climate change and sea level rise were only beginning then, but someone should have seen the potential for an environmental disaster.

A 2005 engineering report recommended abandoning the section of the pipeline that runs along the base of the Willemar Bluffs, where it is vulnerable to winter storms. But the rest of the pipeline also needs to be replaced. In a few years, the main pump station in Courtenay will be inadequate to handle the volume created by one of the province’s fastest growing regions.

Instead of creating a new sewerage master plan for the entire Comox Valley, the CVRD is poised to apply a band-aid for Courtenay and Comox. It proposes to replace only the last half of the sewer pipeline with an overland route. But instead of upgrading the existing secondary pump station in Comox, the CVRD proposed a new pump station on Beech Street, a dense neighborhood outside the Town of Comox boundaries. This may violate the CVRD’s own bylaws.

After protests from the Beech neighborhood, the CVRD abandoned the site. But it foolishly choose another site on an intact K’omoks midden within one of the few remaining salt marshes in an Environmentally Sensitive Area Development Permit Zone, which would have also blocked a popular beach access.

It’s astonishing that the CVRD didn’t step back from these blunders and re-examine its process. They did eventually form an Advisory Committee, but it ignored the committee’s recommendations and has returned to its original Beech Street location, which the committee ranked as the worst option.

It’s unfair to site this facility in the Beech neighborhood because it has no representation on the sewage commission. Courtenay cast its three votes to oppose the Beech Street site, but a CFB Comox vote helped the three Comox representatives win a 4-3 decision.

This is unfortunate. It’s undemocratic, and dismisses public sentiment. It sets up a political and legal battle. And it creates unnecessary conflict despite having a ready solution that would receive wide public support — and which could potentially qualify the project for federal infrastructure funding.

The CVRD’s Advisory Committee gave its top recommendation to rebuilding the existing pump station in Courtenay. An independent analysis shows the CVRD could save between $7 million and $12 million in the long term if it upgraded the pumps at Courtenay and replaced the entire pipeline now. This would eliminate the need for a second pump station and eliminate the exposed section under the Willemar Bluffs.

But the remaining old pipe has to be replaced eventually, so it would be even better to reroute all of the pipeline overland. This would prevent an environmental catastrophe because a burst pipe today could pour raw sewage into the estuary.

A more ambitious plan would also prevent other battles. It’s unlikely that Environment Canada, Fisheries and the K’omoks First Nation will ever allow the CVRD to replace the pipe that runs through the estuary. The CVRD has no such agreement with agencies or the K’omoks First Nation, who recently won an award for the protection and restoration of the estuary.

It’s curious why the CVRD has not considered this win-win option. It saves long-term money. It avoids serious conflict now. It heads off future lawsuits. And it would surely score political points for the regional directors who finally correct a 35-year-old mistake.

This article was originally published in the Victoria Times-Colonist.