Volume 77 Issue No.13

@ @
Opinion TheReview Wednesday, March 27,1991 — A6

Sewage disposal:
setting the example

When you hear news reports about authorities in the
state of Washington complaiming about Greater Victoria
pumping raw sewage into Georgia Strait, don’t forget the
real facts about sewage disposal on the Saanich Peninsula.

This tri-municipal area is poised to carry through a
sewage disposal initiative that is far superior to that
operated by our urban neighbors.

The largest frustration with the Peninsula’s sewage
disposal methods is not a lack of equipment or technology.
Simply, a lack of will is the only reason for a sludge
disposal program not being implemented. Currently,
sewage is separated through a process that produces
effluent (treated liquid waste) and sludge (de-watered
sewage waste).

_Although the sludge has been separated in treatment
plants operated by the Capital Regional District for years,
after an amount of sludge has built up, it is flushed through
the outfall into the sea along with the effluent.

Our urban neighbors do not separate their sewage waste
into effluent and sludge, deciding instead to pump the
whole business out to sea.

Plans for a pilot project whereby sludge would be
applied to farmland in the Mt. Newton Valley has come
under fire by those concerned about possible effects to
Hagan Creek.

Although Victoria proper and its adjoining urban centres
can be criticized for their continual sewage treatment
practices, we should concentrate our efforts to get rid of the
sludge.

If the Peninsula demonstrates an environmentally-
sensitive method of sewage disposal, an incentive will be
demonstrated that could force our neighbors to do
likewise.

But, while the sludge is allowed to be flushed here, and
provincial authorities continue to choose not to exercise
their right to levy fines, our polluting neighbors feel they
have time on their hands.

Let’s find an alternative that satisfies most of the people,
and get rid of our sludge without using the oceans as a
dumping ground.

Farmland seems to be the answer and Woodwyn Farms
may be the right location, providing precautions are taken
to protect the creek and Saanich Inlet.

If Woodwyn can’t be used, another farm site should be
found, and quickly. Let’s get that de-watering equipment to
work and start dealing with our pollution problems
completely.

What can be done here on a relatively small scale can be
copied by others. We believe Peninsula municipalities
should tell the CRD to finish the job, giving others within
the Capital Region something to copy.

CoNTRoOL...A
CONSPIRACY , MAYBE!

I THINK I'M GOING To

CiStson) CEusy 4g,

letters 10 thie editor musi be
signed and contain the writer's
address and telephone number.
Letters should not exceed 500
words in length and may be
edited for clarity, legality or taste.

TheReview

Serving The Saanich Peninsula
Since 1912

9726 1st Street

Sidney, B.C V8L 3C9

or PO. Box 2070

Sidney, B.C V8L 3S5

Second Class Mail Registration #0128
Published every Wednesday

656-1151

Publisher: Vic Swan Editor: Glenn Werkman
AN ISLAND PUBLISHERS NEWSPAPER

cCNAY

=
VERIFIED
CIRCULAT:ON

Those beaches
belong fo us

Editor:

In last week’s Review, Pacific
Parkland Inc. posted a legal notice
of its application for a Licence of
Occupation on James Island.

According to the notice, the
company requires both land and
water for expansion of its existing
moorage facilities, and to allow for
private boat launching and anchor-
age.

This area, commonly known as
“the gunkhole,” has been a favor-
ite anchorage of Peninsula boaters
for generations. According to the
map in the newspaper notice, the
plans of Pacific Parkland appear
innocuous.

However, a closer look at the
dimensions of the area requested
by the company — “1.0 ha more
or less” — presents a different
picture. How much anchoring
space will be left in the gunkhole
for the boating public?

Another concem is the use of
Crown land. The former owners of
James Island held a foreshore
lease which for more than 70 years
denied the public use of the
island’s publicly-owned beaches.

That lease has been lifted and
people can now stroll the entire
11-kilometre shoreline at low tide.

Any future foreshore leases
should be issued only with the
stipulation that the public’s access
to the beaches remains unimpaired
by private development.

I wish the developers success
with their venture, but emphasize
that the long and lovely beaches of
James Island belong to us, not
Pacific Parkland.

Bruce Obee
Deep Cove

Justice sysiem
is failing badly

Editor:

Congratulations on focussing
attention on the failure of our
justice system. Problems are
created to a very large extent by
the adversary nature under which
we administer justice and the
extreme lengths to which lawyers

will go to try to win an acquittal.

Neither justice nor the public
interest is served by acquittals on
technicality over an individual’s
charter rights. The legal system
thinks that the charter rights of
accused persons are more import-
ant. I believe the Canadian public
thinks it is more important to bring
criminals to justice.

If I read your report of this case

correctly we have here an impaired
driver who was arrested, made a
statement that was inadmissible in
court and was then acquitted at his
trial. What this case comes down
to was not whether he was
impaired, crashed into other vehi-
cles, caused nearly $15,000 prop-
erty damage and sent three people
to hospital, but whether his rights
had been violated. Did you ever
hear such nonsense?

A great deal has been said and
written by judges and lawyers
about the justice system being
brought into disrepute by the
actions of the police and others,
yet it is the lawyers and judges
themselves who bring the system
into disrepute by their failure to
see the difference between judicial
common sense and legal techni-
cality. Any time common sense
and legal technicality are in con-
flict, common sense will lose.

With regard to the specific case
you describe, why did it take a year
to get this into court and why was
not alternative charge made to that
of impaired driving? E.G.: Danger-
ous driving. And why did The
Review not name the person
acquitted and the judge who
acquitted him? It is obviously in
the public interest for the full story
to be printed.

Your editorial (Effective justice
system, The Review, March 20) on
the subject of the charter is well
argued but in the meantime the
responsibility for Canadian Law is
being slowly but surely transferred
from the politicians, who can be
fired by the electorate, to the
judiciary who cannot.

A wise man once said that war
is too important to be left to
generals. I believe that justice is
too important fo be left to lawyers.

K.J. Brind
Saanichton

Editor’s note: The Review will
not publish the name of a person
who is acquitted of all charges.

Public hearing on
all OCP changes

Editor:

An article in The Review, March __
20 (Council planning OCP over- ©
haul), left a number of impressions
which do not accurately reflect
discussions which took place at
council.

A reported exchange between
Aldermen Bruce Tobin and Arlene
Box may have left the impression
that “in-house” management of
changes to the OCP meant that
there would be no public hearing.

The difference of opinion
between the alderman was over
philosophy. Neither would be so
naive to believe that no public
hearing would take place. The
account in The Review does not _
do justice to either aldermen’s
position.

Any changes to an OCP require
a public hearing. In the case of the
current review of the OCP. an open
house and other opportunities for
public input will occur.

A second inaccurate statement is
that proposed amendments will
eliminate the provision for golf
courses on ALR land. In fact, the
policies and guidelines will
remain essentially the same. Lan-
guage changes may tighten up
some ambiguous phrases.

In general, the planning and
zoning committee has proposed
amendments to four broad areas in _
the OCP: = S

1. Because an OCP is a reflec-
tion of community values rather
than a development strategy, some
language has been changed. Hous-
ing and growth questions should
merely be one aspect of an OCP
and of its land use policies rather
than its predominant focus.

2. Since the incorporation of
Central Saanich, in 1951, residents
have taken pride in the rural nature
of the municipality. The current
OCP designates non-ALR unser-
viced land as “Urban reserve’’,
arguing for the soonest possible
development of all non-ALR land
outside of the serviced Brentwood
and Saanichton/Keating Ridge _
areas. The amendments propose
that such unserviced or partly _
serviced land be designated
“rural’’, more accurately reflecting
the nature of Central Saanich.
Areas such as Tod Inlet and Mount
Newton, €.g., contain sensitive

Continued on Page A8

_——————— CC