Misleading public on LWMP

The new public engagement process is in the news http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/365973471.html and the news and CALWMC directors are misleading the public.

“I think director (Ben) Isitt said it best, there’s still lots in flux.” Lisa Helps

“We’re not at the end. We’re not even at the beginning of the end. We’re making a teeny tiny decision … to go out and have conversation with our public,” said Susan Brice. “I really hoped that after hearing everything and not expecting perfection and knowing it’s fluid … that this would be something that would be quite frankly unanimously supported.”

http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/365973471.html

There are many other similar statements coming from the CALWMC; all false. This public engagement is to prepare for a new LWMP amendment; to be ratified by CRD this Feb 24th; to be approved by the Province by the end of March.

Once approved there is NO WAY for the public to have it changed. The Seaterra Commission is waiting in the wings to take over in March/April and procure the new amendment. Those "in flux", "not at the end" statements are false: once the province approves the plan it is fixed.  Only another round of public engagement can produce a change.  Nothing can guarantee this will happen once Seaterra takes over.

CRD information on gasification is from non-experts

The CRD has said they have hired expertise in gasification.  Where is it?

Back in August 2015 the news was the CRD had just hired expertise in gasification.

https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/news/2015/08/14/calwmc-takes-key-steps-forward-with-wastewater-treatment-planning-process

Urban Systems, partnered with Carollo Associates, has been awarded the contract to conduct the Feasibility and Costing Analysis for the CRD’s Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan Wastewater Treatment System. ...  Carollo Associates offers specialist advisors in key subject areas appropriate for the scope of work including: gasification, resource recovery, tertiary treatment and facility lifecycle cost estimation.

"Carollo Associates" was a mistake. The company name is "Carollo Engineers"  http://www.carollo.com/

Search the company web site for gasification and you will get no results.

During the Technical Oversight Panel meeting of January 12th, afternoon, there was a review of the cost estimates for gasification. On the phone was Rudi Killian and he was providing the "expertise"

Mr Killian is highly skilled; as is visible from his LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/rudy-kilian-3580008.  To see LinkedIn profiles you might need to be a registered user. So, for the record, here are Mr Killian's top skills

Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, Wastewater Process Design, Biosolids Management. Specialties: Biosolids, Project Management, Anaerobic Digestion, Advanced Anaerobic Digestion, Digetion (sic) of Organic Materials

There is nothing about gasification.

Does the CRD have any technical expertise in gasification? Yes but suppressed in the Technical Oversight Panel (TOP). This panel is run as a committee so the lonely gasification vendor/expert is always out voted by the traditional technology experts.  We are only getting what non-experts are telling us.

Bluntly, the technical information about gasification, provided by the CRD, is not based on technical expertise.

What is a LWMP?

LWMP stands for Liquid Waste Management Plan.  The Provincial web site describes it well.

Liquid waste management plans allow municipalities to develop community-specific solutions for wastewater management that meet or exceed existing regulations.
Final plans are approved by the Minister of Environment only after sufficient public and stakeholder consultation has taken place.

From the guidelines:

The Environmental Management Act (EMA) allows local governments to develop a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) for approval by the Minister of Environment.  The approved LWMP authorizes a local government, in accordance with operational certificates, to proceed with measures in the plan to accommodate existing or future development with a strategy to ensure the management, resource recovery and disposal of treated waste is sufficiently protective of public health and the environment. Public and stakeholder consultation must be included to ensure that multiple interests have been considered and that the LWMP is supported by the community. A projected implementation schedule is generally included; the schedule may be affected by technical issues, the pace of development, and the availability of financing.
   
2.0 Provincial Objectives for LWMPs
The two primary objectives for LWMPs are to protect public health and the environment and to properly consult the public. Opportunities for elector participation through public review and consultation are an essential part of developing a LWMP and must occur before a plan may be considered for approval.
Additional provincial objectives for LWMPs are water conservation, drinking water source protection, resources from waste, energy conservation, climate change adaptation, and mitigation and sustainable financing and asset management. Local governments are encouraged to use their LWMPs to illustrate innovation and leadership in these areas.

... The EMA also states that the minister must be satisfied that there has been adequate public review and consultation during the development of the LWMP before approving the plan. These requirements are important because there is no mechanism to appeal a plan once approved by the minister.
The Local Government Act and the Community Charter require approval of electors for the borrowing of funds necessary to finance any capital works, including wastewater infrastructure. The provisions of the EMA allow local governments to borrow money without the approval of electors for implementation of an approved LWMP; therefore, the public consultation process must provide opportunities for elector participation during the development and amendment of a plan.
...
Public participation should foster acceptance and a feeling of ownership among the residents of the local community. While the guidelines found in this document serve as a baseline, local governments should not feel limited by them as further action may be required to meet the needs of community members.

Key things to remember about any LWMP.

1. A LWMP is approved by the province. There is no "provisional" or "interim" or "in flux" or "one step along the way" approvals.
2. Once approved there is no way the public can force any change.
3. Public participation should foster acceptance not resignation and defeat.

What is the Technical Oversight Panel?

What is the Technical Oversight Panel?  Is it a committee or a panel?  This matters to everyone.
A committee is a group that works by consensus. They vote on motions and the majority wins. The voice of the minority is not heard outside of the committee. A panel works as a team and their work includes all voices.

The Technical Oversight Panel, or TOP for short, has six experts in different fields. The Technical Oversight Panel is operating as a committee. When they vote as a committee the non-experts always out number the expert in any given field.  Why?  The name "Technical Oversight Panel" indicates it should be a panel of peers so that the public and the decision makers hear from each relevant expert.

Here is a story that demonstrates the problem.   Only one expert on the panel knows about integrating different technologies to get innovation.  The vote was 5 against this 1.

"New wastewater bid doesn’t trigger an ‘option 6’" Oak Bay News

    Oak Bay Mayor Nils Jensen. “The purpose of putting a wide range of people on a committee is to have that wholesome discussion … it undermines the whole idea of committee work.”

    “We assembled this group of expert advice to give us expert advice,” agreed Director David Screech, View Royal mayor, adding it’s “completely out of line and insulting to our Technical Oversight Panel. Are we going to hear that every time someone doesn’t like a recommendation?”

Is is OK to allow this?  The public is paying for a Panel of Experts.  Why can't we hear what the expert on integration had to say about this rejected solution?  Why did the experts in the traditional, non-innovative, solutions get to out vote this expert's information from reaching us?
We may get to know the answer thanks to Director Atwell who got that request approved by CALWMC.  But the answer will be too late for the public engagement and the answer will be a special case instead of the status quo.
There are many other similar times TOP member's expert opinion as been suppressed by the committee structure.  You just had to attend any TOP meeting to see this happen. Other examples include topics such as integration of other waste stream, leading standards from Europe on calculating sewage flows, gasification, just to name a few.

The public is paying for a Panel of Experts but we got a committee to suppress the individual experts.

For reference here is the link to the terms of reference for the TOP link