 | | Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant stacks on Toronto's Waterfront. Photo by Isabelle Boucher. |
Marcus Gee of the Globe and Mail wrote a passionate column last week about the need to “take a dispassionate look at Toronto’s sewage treatment.” In his column, Gee describes a recent City of Toronto vote, in which councillors approved a shiny new ultra-violet light treatment system for the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant. City staff and two consulting firms recommended a cheaper option: chlorinating partially-treated sewage before releasing it into Lake Ontario. “It seems a little mad to solicit staff advice on such a devilishly complex issue only to reject it. Why on Earth does city hall hire expert staff if it is going to ignore them?” asks Gee. Councillor Gord Perks explains: “The general manager of water believes the right thing to do is spend less money and pollute more. I believe the opposite.” Both Gee and Perks show passion with their words: and so they should. Sewage treatment plants are the largest surface water polluters on Lake Ontario. They are incredibly expensive for municipalities to manage. And our cities can’t work without them. Gee is flat-out wrong, though, when he paints Perks as a naive environmentalist-turned-politician who ignores the sober, sage advice of the impartial consultants and staff. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper reviewed the reports and we found them, in all cases, to be lacking in critical information that decision-makers like Perks need to do their jobs well. We also found misrepresentations of basic facts that skew the results in favour of the cheapest “solution”. The preamble to the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant disinfection report, to give one example, can make your blood boil (check out page iv). It’s not rational, informed, or even accurate:
- Contrary to what the consulting team states, the current disinfection process (chlorination/de-cholorination) is not “effective”. Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant is the largest polluter of surface waters in Canada – hardly a sign of efficacy.
- The current disinfection process is not doing a good enough job protecting the adjacent Woodbine-Ashbridges Bay Beach. The beach was posted 11% of the time in 2010. The maximum beach postings allowed by the Ontario government is 5%.
- It is true that the current disinfection process is commonly used at large wastewater plants on Lake Ontario, but these plants are also the biggest surface water polluters in the nation – hardly a ringing endorsement for chlorination.
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper reviewed the reports, and we found that they all blithely promote a similar paradigm: environmental protection is nice, if we can achieve it, but there are a lot of different factors to consider when making a decision. In other words: clean water is a choice. The Environmental Assessment report gives compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act a weight of just less than half of the overall 1/3 weight it gives to environmental criteria (social and economic are the other two indices). UV treatment scores highest on CEPA compliance, but that’s weighted against greenhouse gas emissions as well as social criterion such as public opinion and economic criterion such as dependence on commodities. The problem is, that’s not how the law works. In our country, consultants, staff, and politicians cannot pick and choose which environmental laws they want to comply with. CEPA, the Fisheries Act, the Ontario Environmental Protection Act: these are binding, enforceable laws. They aren’t catalogues of fanciful policy objectives that it would be “nice” to achieve some day. They are the bare minimum of what every person, corporation and government must do. By focusing first on compliance with environmental laws, Councillor Perks and every other councillor that voted for UV treatment made the right decision.
More infoAshbridges Bay Treatment Plant Effluent Disinfection Class EA Study Report
Toronto City Council Decision Document (See PW 3.5)
City Staff Peer Review Findings of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Effluent Class Environmental Assessment Study
AECOM Peer Review Findings of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Effluent Class Environmental Assessment Study 2010
AECOM Peer Review Findings of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Effluent Class Environmental Assessment Study 2011
Passionate Perks needs to take a dispassionate look at Toronto’s sewage treatment Support our work. Text DRINK to 45678 to make a $10 donation to Lake Ontario. Thank you!
Join us June 4th on Wolfe Island for the annual Joe Burke Wolfe Island Literary Festival. This is a free event (but don’t forget cash to buy books on site!).This year’s festival features Grant Lawrence, Priscila Uppal, Andrew Nikiforuk, Wayne Grady, Michael Winter and Alison Pick. Our special musical guest is Selina Martin and you’ll also hear from Dave Bidini, Tanis Rideout, Mark Mattson, Joseph Boyden and Steven Heighton. Go here for more information.
| 
June 6th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Comment sent via email:
I support your position on this subject. There is a pervasive, corrosive and pernicious tendency in Ontario to view the protection of our environment as something optional, a nice thing if it doesn’t interfere with business.
Witness the Green Energy Act and Regulations of the REA which are designed to implement an “open for business” agenda whereby any regulations inconvenient to developers and unfettered industrialization is to be ignored or circumvented or declared non-applicable.
We see this in the way the MOE and MNR continually accept the inadequate and obviously biased Environmental Assessments created by Consulting companies (some of whom are themselves developers or partner in projects) hired by Wind developers, which ignore mirgratory bird flyways and downplay the existence or importance of ANSIs and the presence of species listed as endangered or threatened under IUCN, CITES, COSEWIC and the ESA. When the existence of these species is so well know that it can’t be denied the Consiultant will downplay the importance of the population or maintain that the IWT will have no impact. The MNR has rubber stamped every such application, issuing permits to kill, harass and destroy habitat despite the fact that issuing such permits is not allowed under the ESA. The MNR will even accept EIAs which deliberately, or otherwise, make no mention of endangered species that the MNR knows very well inhabit the area to be developed.
While I appreciate that Waterkeeper’s primary focus is Lake Ontario, I would point out that it is the habitats and species in its watershed that are being fragmented and destroyed. The Short-Eared Owl has already disappeared from Wolfe Island since the construction of the Wind Generating Station there, a Generating Station which has killed thousands of migratory birds and bats (many of which are protected as well as threatened or endangered species) during its first two years in operation.
The McGuinty Government has imposed a moratorium on fresh water Wind Generating Stations, due to political pressure in the face of the upcoming elections. This is the second since 2006, and imposed for the same reason – a supposed lack of scientific evdence of their safety. Why was the moratorium lifted the first time then if the science wasn’t done? Do you really expect that the moratorium won’t be lifted as soon as they are re-elected (if they are re-elected) this fall?
What value will the Lake have when its watershed is destroyed by industrialization? How healthy can it remain when the ecosystem that supports it collapses?
Sincerely
Action at LSarc