Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

Photo Caption

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

By

Just over halfway through their first terms in local government, regional district directors Daniel Arbour and Arzeena Hamir have earned high approval ratings from the respondents to a Local Government Performance Review conducted recently by Decafnation.

Decafnation initiated the survey to measure how satisfied voters were with the performance of the councillors, directors and trustees they elected in 2018.

The first article summarizing the survey’s findings published earlier this week took a close look at the Courtenay and Comox municipal councils and individual council members. This second article focuses on the rural electoral areas of the Comox Valley Regional District, as well as the District 71 school board and Island Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby Islands.

Electoral Area A Director Daniel Arbour received the highest approval rating of all the Comox Valley’s 33 elected officials reviewed in the survey. Eighty-nine percent of Area A respondents said they were either very satisfied (61%) or satisfied (28%) with his performance so far. That was also the survey’s highest ‘very satisfied’ rating.

Affordable housing the top issue in Areas A and B. In Area C, it was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy

Electoral Area B Director Arzeena Hamir was close behind Arbour with a 65 percent approval rating from respondents, including a 58 percent approval rating in the top ‘very satisfied’ level.

Respondents from electoral areas A and B also said they were satisfied with the work of the Comox Valley Regional District board of directors.

But veteran electoral director Edwin Grieve didn’t fare as well. Fifty-seven percent of electoral area C respondents said they were dissatisfied with his performance at mid-term, including 30 percent who said they were very dissatisfied.

Despite Grieve’s low approval rating, the survey found that Area C respondents were still mostly satisfied with the regional board as a whole, although their satisfaction level (38%) was the lowest of the three electoral areas. Also, the number of Area C respondents who gave the board a neutral rating (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) was the highest of the three rural areas.

The survey results also show that most residents in the municipalities and rural areas were ambivalent about School District 71 school board trustees as well as Island Trust representatives. With a few exceptions, most of these elected officials’ received the neutral rating of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

A neutral rating usually indicates the survey respondent doesn’t have enough information to form a strong positive or negative impression or that they are indifferent to, in this case, the school board and Island Trust issues.

Denman Island’s Laura Busheikin received the strongest satisfaction rating (54%) among the four Islands Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby islands. But both Busheikin and Denman’s other representative, David Critchley, received a significant number of written comments.

All four Islands Trust trustees received high neutral satisfaction ratings, probably because twice as many Area A residents live in the Royston to Fanny Bay portion of the district as on the islands. Those residents are not as likely to follow Denman and Hornby civic issues.

“Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

The survey also asked respondents to identify the top issues elected officials should address before voters go back to the polls on Oct. 15 of next year.

Although the list of top issues varied in each jurisdiction, areas A and B choose affordable housing as the number one issue. In Area C, the top issue was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy, quite possibly a reaction to the multi-year controversy over a large subdivision proposed by 3L Developments.

The survey was conducted over a three-week period via Survey Monkey and the results independently analyzed by community volunteers not associated with Decafnation.

Respondents could choose among five levels: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. For this story, in most instances, we have combined the top two satisfied ratings and bottom two dissatisfied ratings and refer to them as simply satisfied or dissatisfied.

Most of the 314 survey respondents included written comments to help explain their satisfaction ratings. These can be found elsewhere on the Decafnation website.

Here’s a closer look at the results for the Comox Valley Regional District Electoral Areas, school trustees and Island Trust representatives.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA A

Almost two-thirds of survey respondents from Area A (61%) said they are satisfied with the regional district board. That was the highest approval rating of any local government surveyed and may be a reflection of respondents’ satisfaction with CVRD Director Daniel Arbour.

Arbour not only received the highest approval rating in the survey (89%) but he also had the lowest disapproval rating (7%) and the fewest number of indifferent respondents (4% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).

Area A respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

One respondent said they were very satisfied with Arbour because, “Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

“He has a good media presence so I see things he is trying to do. Shares information on Facebook. Connects with locals about rural concerns and get what it’s like to live rurally,” said another respondent.

You can find all of the regional district, school trustee and Islands Trust comments here.

District 71 school board Chair Sheila McDonnell, who represents Area A, received the highest satisfaction rating (29%) of any school trustee and a low dissatisfaction rating (5%).

But survey respondents across the Comox Valley gave all of the school board trustees, including McDonnell, and the four Islands Trust representatives overwhelmingly indifferent ratings. Sixty-seven percent of Area A respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with McDonnell.

Respondents said they “have no kids in school, so not an interest,” and “No idea what she’s up to.” While another respondent said, “Sheila has been very receptive to feedback and concerns about the school board processes.”

Few Area A respondents said whether they were satisfied not with the Denman and Hornby Island Trust representatives.

Denman’s Laura Busheikin topped the survey for most responses and respondents also gave her the highest satisfied rating (54%) and also the lowest indifferent rating (37%).

“Laura is by far the best Islands Trustee we’ve had in the 31 years I’ve lived on Denman Island. She’s smart, hard-working, and faultlessly ethical despite being cast, in some Islanders’ minds, as a foil to Local Trust Committee members whom they regard as “elitists,” said one respondent.

Area A respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

Only about 20 percent of Area A respondents said they were satisfied or dissatisfied with Hornby trustees Grant Scott and Alex Allen and Denman trustee Dave Critchley. But respondents did have several conflicting comments about Critchley

“Trustee Critchley is a lawyer and performs his LTC job officiously. He tends to take a conservative position on certain issues, particularly housing which has become a hot-button again as the IT Council has decided to crack down on non-conforming dwellings and has been issuing eviction notices since last winter. These “illegal” dwellings have existed on this Island for 47 years—ever since the imposition of the Islands Trust. They exist because they are critically necessary: the AVERAGE age on Denman is 61 years old and younger workers of every sort are needed—and need places to live. Trustee Critchley has tended to support the recent crackdown on non-conforming dwellings. About 20% of our population lives in these,” said one respondent.

And when it came to the top issues Area A respondents want Arbour to address before the end of his first term, Affordable housing topped the list (66%). Next was mental health and opioid addiction issues.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA B

More than twice as many Area B respondents to the survey say they are satisfied (53%) than dissatisfied (20%) with the regional district board. And 65 percent say they are satisfied with the performance of Director Arzeena Hamir. Just 13 percent said they were dissatisfied.

Area B respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

“Arzeena Hamir is an outstanding director. I highly respect her for her willingness to speak up and be vocal about issues she feels strongly about. She communicates professionally and thoroughly researches issues she’s addressing. She has been unafraid to speak publicly about CVEDS, and other challenges the CVRD is facing,” said one respondent.

“Have been very impressed with Director Hamir in every way. Particularly appreciated her support of Curtis Road residents in our difficulties with the Sewage Treatment plant,” said another who echoed other respondents’ comments.

The comments from Area B respondents, which can be found here, included these:

“On the whole I am pleased with how the CVRD has handled things this past term. I’m especially happy that they are putting CVEDS through their paces and bringing them to task for the years of secretive operations and inadequate service to the area as a whole,” said one.

Area B respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

While another said, “I think that personal relationships seem to trump community greater good when it comes to decision making for Director Edwin Grieve. Very satisfied with Daniel Arbour and Arzeema Hamir.”

Survey respondents were dramatically indifferent about school board Trustee Michelle Waite. Ninety percent of Area B respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, because, according to one respondent, “No idea how that is going.”

Another respondent said, “The school district does a poor job of getting its news and information to the public. Sometimes this feels intentional.”

The top issues Area B respondents want to be addressed are affordable housing and the Regional Growth Strategy. But they also noted support for the farming sector and climate change as top issues leading up to the 2022 civic elections.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA C

Of the Comox Valley’s three electoral districts, Area C is the most unhappy with their regional board representation, and the least happy with the CVRD board itself.

Area C respondents’ satisfaction level with Director Edwin Grieve – click to enlarge

Area C respondents said they were decidedly dissatisfied (56%) with the performance of Director Edwin Grieve.

“Grieve appears to support the visions of CVEDS and the Exhibition Grounds Committee that are not in keeping with more sustainable, grassroots, community-based values. BIG is not necessarily beautiful. Input from local growers and the community at large should be valued and respected, not minimized or criticized. Time for him to join many of the other “old boys club” members and step aside,” said one respondent.

All of the survey’s written comments about Grieve, the regional district and their school board trustee can be read in their entirety here.

But 30 percent of Area C respondents were also satisfied with his performance.

Area C respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

“Edwin has been between a rock and a hard place for a long time, what with 3L being in his grill for so long. Director Grieve seems to be a conciliator personality type and is not his own best advocate. I think that many times what he does is not actually understood by the electorate and the press,” according to another survey respondent.

The recently appointed school trustee for Area C, Cristi May Sacht received equally small numbers of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents and 81 percent who said they didn’t know enough about her or were indifferent to school issues.

Protecting and updating the Regional Growth Strategy is the top issue (65%) that respondents from Area C want their director to address in the last half of his term. Respondents ranked affordable housing second (52%) and then economic development and climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW YOU RATED ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS, SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND ISLANDS TRUST REPS

Cumberland school board trustee Sarah Jane Howe’s result derives from only three respondents, two who gave her a neutral rating and one who gave a satisfied rating.

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY AGE GROUPINGS

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

Electoral Area B Comments

These are the written comments made by Electoral Area B residents who participated in Decafnation’s Local Government Performance Review. Comments that breached our journalistic standards have been eliminated. All other comments appear as entered into the online survey platform. Click on each image to enlarge the view.

Arzeena Hamir

I like Arzeena because she asks the tough questions other directors are sometimes hesitant to ask.

Arzeena has been very supportive of our fight with the SEwage Commission to rid our neighbourhood of the stink from the CVWPCC.

She is excellent. I’ll vote for her again. We can’t do better.

Arzeena takes the time to become informed about issues. I value her knowledge and input

I have HUGE respect for Arzeena. She exudes such integrity, respect and knowledge. Honestly don’t know how she does it while running an organic farm, raising kids etc. It was an honour to help with her campaign.

Needs to be in the news more, and provide more newsletters to keep us informed

Don’t know what’s going on at the Regional District.

Arzeena always responds to concerns and takes action.

I like her position on 3L She is on the right track with most things. I am glad she is looking after the farming community.

Have heard or read nothing from her.

I like her. She cares about the environment and seems approachable and honest, unlike many politicians.

She seems to use a common-sense approach.

Arzeena is working hard to bring in new and progressive governing.

Have been very impressed with Director Hamir in every way. Particularly appreciated her support of Curtis Road residents in our difficulties with the Sewage Treatment plant.

Arzeena Hamir is an outstanding director. I highly respect her for her willingness to speak up and be vocal about issues she feels strongly about. She communicates professionally and thoroughly researches issues she’s addressing. She has been unafraid to speak publicly about CVEDS, and other challenges the CVRD is facing.

She is doing an excellent job. Smart, informed, good listener, principled, won’t be bullied by the old boys.

There is no outreach to Area B residents that I am aware of. It would be useful to have the opportunity to sign up for updates on issues that our director is involved with.

Doesn’t even answer or return messages.

Ms. Hamir is a positive force for thoughtful & considered decision-making.

Don’t hear much from her.

Invisible

Area B Comments on CVRD

I want to board to totally transform the economic development function. I do not want the board to include a misnamed agriplex on the exhibition grounds.

I think that Arzeena is very intelligent, committed and ethical.

I think compared to many decades previously we have a very progressive CVRD board of directors.

Do not take interest in anything outside of their special interests

In terms of big projects, I think the new water filtration plant has been mostly handled well, the emergency notification system works for me, and I sincerely hope that we will get garbage pick up in the future – I am glad to see that this project is at least ongoing. The RD also supports some affordable housing initiatives. As to other critical issues, many are outside jurisdictions not local governments… eg health, welfare rates etc

We really don’t get much information on what happens. Some more outreach to residents would be appreciated.

Happy with the exception of how the Area C Director has voted on 3L as he is pro 3L, I am NOT. Re unified parks program…Edwin Grieve did raise this issue which is good. Otherwise, I like most of what the Directors are doing.

There is little contact or information passed to the residents

Not sure who to blame but we are losing land to development. No trails along Lazo Rd from Torrence to Balmoral where many people walk. They have sold a lot of water access pathways in our area.

Arzeena is an amazing leader and not a bit afraid to make tough decisions nor is she afraid to stand steady in her leadership and opinions.

Would appreciate more communication with constituents regarding issues and projects.

The CVRD could have been doing a better job overseeing CVEDS rather than leaving it to this point. I’m also not overly impressed with their COVID response.

The board structure creates its own historical problems.

Seem to have a focus on small issues versus bigger picture and allow other jurisdictions to treat Electoral Areas as a whipping post

Directors appear to make decisions based on evidence & consultation. Good communication.

We live in a so-called desirable area without any services (water, sewer) at all. Our taxes are nearly $4,000 a year before grants. Our road is a washboard of sunken areas, potholes, broken down edges and only a spattering of rough patchwork has been done over the past decade. We get the runaround when we call to complain, are told to call the contractor who says it’s the responsibility of the Ministry of Highways. In other words, nothing gets done.

Very low key. Administration leads

Area B Issues

These are all critical issues. child care, less so for the RD that other local governments as the RD is an older community

We need to preserve the green areas in Area B. We also need to stand up to Comox Council and Courtenay council. They use our area B to dispose of sewerage, while giving us no say in the matter.

Non of the above. The best service to the people would be to continue the self-lockdown. Don’t do anything, so you won’t do any more damage.

Bike and walking allowances should be included in transport planning. Bike lanes should be much wider from Lazo Road to the airport

Any new development should have mandatory solar panels? Mandatory charging stations? Why not get going in the right direction.

Not sure if they can but stop letting the Town of Comox from taking CVRD land, and from paving it and developing it. Cutting down beautiful forests and animal habitats. Make room for nature. Stop any use or sale of poisons especially rat poison that kill our birds of prey.

I would like to see an RD Parks function

Active Transportation protecting Stotan falls area and Bevan trail and watershed area

Most important issues for me are related to addressing climate change, creating a better infrastructure to support cycling, and addressing food insecurity.

I am completely opposed to a food hub. I do not believe this appropriately or adequately addresses food security. This does not serve to address food sovereignty. This proposal serves a non-profit seeking more control and funding of local food when de-centralizing food systems is the only path to actually addressing food security. Small scale farms are currently thriving. The only major change I would like to see is another small abattoir so that there isn’t a monopoly on small scale meat processing. I would love to see a ban of glyphosate and for the RD and municipalities to stop allowing it because it is used for knotweed. The school district needs to address the bullying, violence, homophobic and racist behaviour happening in and around schools. And finally but most importantly, we could continue to strengthen our relationship with K’omoks First Nation.

Overarching priority should be relations with K’omoks First Nation and reconciliation as per UNDRIP and the TRC’s Calls to Action. This priority should be the lens through which all other issues are addressed.

Stand up for how the Electoral areas are used and abused by Town of Comox and City of Courtenay

How can I narrow the list down to the highest priorities? Each of these are priorities that impact residents valley-wide.

Need the CVRD to lead initiatives for a common growth strategy for the entire Comox Vally, with Courtenay,Comox, Cumberland, KFN

CV Regional District adopts a statement of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

CV Regional District adopts a statement of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

The K’omoks First Nation welcomed the Tribal Canoe Journeys in 2017 at Goose Spit  |  George Le Masurier photo

CV Regional District adopts a statement of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

By

The Comox Valley Regional District board has adopted a statement of reconciliation to guide its work with Indigenous Peoples, including First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.

The statement formally recognizes the regional district’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, as outlined in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and several other key documents.

Electoral Area B Director and board Vice-Chair Arzeena Hamir said in the board’s announcement that reconciliation is “not just a statement or a gesture.” She said it is a commitment to take responsibility for the past and move forward in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to support the reclamation of their identity, culture and livelihood.

“While the words we have adopted are important, as a board we understand that history will judge us by our actions,” Hamir said. “We are at the beginning of a very long journey to heal the past. We must be humble and committed leaders that will help to pave the way towards a better future for our community.”

The CVRD announcement also acknowledged that it will be the actions they undertake to support the statement that will truly define its relationship with Indigenous Peoples moving forward.

K’omoks First Nation Chief Nicole Rempel said it has been her goal to build strong relationships with our local municipalities and work together on the notion of moving forward together. She said KFN and the CVRD have developed a lasting relationship to better understand each other and their common goals, “as well as where we differ, and how we can achieve Reconciliation.”

Rempel said reconciliation will be no easy task.

“Reconciliation is different for everyone, and has a million different meanings,” she said. “Reconciliation cannot be achieved through one simple act, but it does begin with one simple act.”

In September 2019, the CVRD named Indigenous Relations as one of four strategic drivers through which CVRD services will be delivered. To support Indigenous relations as a driver, the CVRD adopted a framework last year that guides core service delivery through an Indigenous Relations lens and promotes greater cultural awareness.

Here are a few of the regional district’s reconciliation activities undertaken in 2020, in addition to regular and ongoing discussions between the CVRD and Indigenous peoples on projects and day-to-day service delivery, such as water supply, sewage collection/treatment, recreation, transit and solid waste, several activities illustrate the progressive work to advance Indigenous interests.

Summer Recreation Program: The CVRD and the Wachiay Friendship Centre co-hosted Earthbound Kids, an all-day Indigenous cultural camp to enhance the community’s understanding of reconciliation by raising the awareness of Indigenous cultural identity. The CVRD was awarded a $10,000 grant through the Union of BC Municipalities’ Urban Communities Partnering for Reconciliation to fund the program.

CVRD and KFN Leadership Meetings: The CVRD Chair and Chief Administrative Officer along with key elected officials and project managers participated in monthly Kómoks First Nation (KFN) chief and council meetings. Eleven meetings between KFN and CVRD leadership were held in 2020, addressing more than 30 specific projects.

Community Benefits Agreement: In late 2020, the CVRD and KFN ratified a Community Benefits Agreement that commits both parties to work together collaboratively on a regional solution for sewer. The partnership recognizes the existing sewer line through Indian Reserve (IR1) was expropriated without adequate consultation and provides compensation for past and future impacts of sewer infrastructure within the reserve. The agreement will provide needed upgrades for Comox and Courtenay sewer infrastructure, while supporting the growth and economic development plans of the K’ómoks community.

South Sewer Extension Project: An extension of sewer service into Royston and Union Bay that will service KFN development lands is in the early stages of assessment. The CVRD is currently undertaking further assessment and technical evaluation including further review of potential costs and is in discussion with the K’ómoks First Nation and Union Bay Estates.

Seal Bay Signage Project: Recognizing that Seal Bay Park lies within K’ómoks First Nation traditional territory the CVRD and KFN worked in partnership to plan signage improvements and enhance the overall park visitor experience while promoting understanding of the cultural heritage and values within the park. Seal Bay Park (referred to as ‘Xwee Xwhya Luq’ by KFN) contains cultural and natural values that are important to the KFN.

LAST CHANCE TO TAKE OUR SURVEY ON SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More
Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

Creating Coal Hills Class A compost at the CVRD  |  Comox Valley Regional District photo

Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

By

Members of the Comox Valley Electoral Areas Services Commission came face-to-face with yet another environmental dilemma this week: sewage sludge.

Sewage sludge is the concentrated residue of everything Comox Valley residents flush down their toilets or pour into their sinks after the wastewater has been separated, treated and piped into the Strait of Georgia.

Unlike most other regional districts, the Comox Valley Regional District treats its sewage sludge to a level that qualifies it as a Class A compost, according to provincial Ministry of Environment regulations. That means the sludge has met certain Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) levels of pathogens and other contaminants, such as heavy metals.

The CVRD then sells the compost to local homeowners as Skyrocket and to companies outside of the Comox Valley for large scale land applications for agriculture, forestry and other industries.

Most other BC regional districts either dispose of their sludge in landfills or treat it to Class B (raw biosolids) or to Class A biosolids products (sterilized sludge). Only Ladysmith, Kelowna and Vernon produce a Class A compost equivalent to the CVRD.

But is the treated sludge safe to use in gardens that grow food for human consumption or to be spread on open land?

The CVRD says it is, and staff point to studies embraced by the BC Ministry of Environment.

But after a large-scale land application of Class B treated sludge from the Powell River sewage treatment plant on a Hamm Road property in the Black Creek area earlier this year, a Campbell River environment group has challenged the safety of biosolids.

In a presentation to the Electoral Areas Services Commission Monday, Philippe Lucas said land applications of biosolids are dangerous because they pose a health risk to humans and legal liabilities for the regional district.

Lucas, a PhD student at the University of Victoria and a former Victoria city councillor and Capital Regional District director, represented the Campbell River Environmental Committee.

“After years of debate, academic studies examining the impact of sewage sludge on the local marine environment confirmed what many of us have long suspected: sewage is unquestionably harming the health of our oceans and subsequently threatening human health as well,” he told the commission.

The Capital Regional District recently stopped dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

“So why would it be any safer to expose our local farms, fields and or forests?” Lucas said.

In a letter to the commission, Leroy McFarlane, president of the Campbell River Environment Committee, said even Class A sludges pose health risks.

“If you walk through Canadian Tire, be aware that every liquid on their shelves could potentially find its way into the sewer system and therefore show up in biosolids,” McFarlane wrote. “A similar walk-through London Drugs will remind you that pharmaceuticals and chemicals sold there might also become a part of biosolids being applied to fields and gardens and show up in our food supply and enter our water and in some cases become airborne.”

Lucas said that some European countries have banned the use of biosolids. And he said that some grocers, including Thrifty Foods, refuse to carry products grown on land fertilized with biosolids.

He said First Nations bands, the Sierra Club of BC and others, including the Island Organic Producers Association (IOPA), all oppose land applications of biosolids.

The IOPA certifies organic farms on Vancouver Island. It has certified about a half-dozen farms in the Comox Valley as organic growers. It is supported by local businesses such as Seeds Food Market in Cumberland, Edible Island Whole Foods Market, the Atlas Cafe, Locals Restaurant and Buckerfields.

The commission took no action, but directors suggested the CVRD staff review the science and assess the legal liabilities.

Area A Director Daniel Arbour noted the difference in the CVRD product versus the Hamm Road application but said the discussion would be informative for the public.

“My view is that the skyrocket product is a highly processed composted material, and staff report low levels of contaminants. Granted it is not pure and free of pharmaceuticals, but we need to report on levels so people understand the level of risk, which could prove minimal compared to alternatives,” Area A Director Daniel Arbour told Decafnation after the meeting.

 

MINISTRY AND CVRD SAYS IT’S SAFE

The Lucas presentation focused on Class B and Class A biosolids, as did the studies his presentation relied on.

The BC Ministry of Environment website doesn’t clearly differentiate between Class B and A biosolids and the Class A compost product produced by the CVRD. It appears to lump all biosolids together and labels them safe.

“Biosolids are the stabilized products that are recovered at the end of the wastewater treatment process. Biosolids are rich in nutrients that may be beneficially used to improve soil conditions and provide nutrition for plants. Because of the biological components of biosolids, proper management is important to control the impact on the environment and human health,” the website says.

The website has links to multiple studies that support its statement.

But the CVRD has “invested heavily … to produce a product that has unrestricted use, and is a valuable source of recycled nutrients,” Kris La Rose, senior manager of water/wastewater services, told Decafnation.

And in a report to the EASC in April of this year, CVRD Chief Administrative Officer Russell Dyson noted the numerous standards and regulations that the regional district’s biosolids must meet.

“In comparison to other nutrient sources available to agricultural producers, such as manure or chemical fertilizers, land application of biosolids has a more stringent regulatory framework, while providing a similar soil amendment,” he said. An attachment to his report included a comparison of regulatory, product composition and environmental considerations for biosolids, manure and chemical fertilizers.

The regional district Skyrocket page on its website suggests the product is safe for use in landscaping, flower gardens and lawns. It does not mention using the product in vegetable gardens

Area B Director Arzeena Hamir, who operates a certified organic farm, told Decafnation after the meeting that she “could not and would not” use biosolids as fertilizer on the food products she sells.

That’s not the case in the United States, she said, where certified organic growers are allowed to use biosolids.

“This is a big societal question we have to address,” she told Decafnation.

 

COMOX VALLEY BIOSOLIDS

Mike Imrie, the CVRD’s manager of wastewater services, said the district sells between 7,000 and 7,500 cubic yards of Skyrocker per year, while the wastewater treatment plant generates about 1,375 to 1,500 tonnes of dry biosolids annually.

Every week a total of 800 yards is placed in one of five bunkers, which ends up as 160 yards of finished product for sale, after composting, screening and curing. The loss in volume comes about from evaporation, and screening out of oversize amendment, which is recycled back into the next batch.

“All of our Biosolids are used in the composting process and none are disposed of in any other way.” Imrie told Decafnation.

The wet biosolids are mixed with an amendment product, which is usually chipped and ground green waste from the landfill, Imrie says. Every four kilograms of wet biosolids is mixed with six kilograms of amendment.

The Class A composting process exposes the sludge to high temperatures for extended periods. The result is a higher level of sterilization of the end product and a higher extent of oxidation of contaminants of emerging concern.

La Rose says the regional district is keeping up with worldwide research on the presence of pharmaceuticals in biosolids.

“So far the conclusions are that pharmaceuticals that are present in our wastewater are more likely to be discharged in the liquid, and the pharmaceuticals that remain in the biosolids are more likely to be broken down during the composting process,” La Rose said.

He said they are following best practices known now that recycling nutrients and organic matter through composting the biosolids is the best way to recycle them.

“It’s interesting to note that there is increased discussion in Europe to allow biosolids from smaller communities with less industry to be used on organic farms,” he said. “The reason for this is that organic farms can only use rock phosphate or compost, and rock phosphate interestingly enough also contains heavy metals. It’s also of concern that our world supply of phosphorus is diminishing, so we need to recycle as much as we can.”

 

OTHER ALTERNATIVES?

During his presentation on behalf of the Campbell River Environment Committee, Lucas said regional districts have four other options for disposing of biosolids.

He said there are technologies to remove heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pharmaceuticals, but other regional districts have found this too expensive.

Biosolids can be turned into energy through gasification. Also, biosolids can be shipped to cement kilns on the Lower Mainland for use as fuel (the Capital Regional District has been doing this).

Finally, he said, biosolids can be shipped to a biochar facility in Prince George where the carbon is sequestered and turned into a high-value end product.

But the list of alternatives didn’t resolve the issue for Area A Director Arbour.

“The question of what to do with such material is a good one, and I am not convinced that burning carbon is the best alternative either,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT THE BC MOE SAYS ABOUT BIOSOLIDS

Biosolids are residual products from sewage treatment processes that have been treated to reduce pathogens and vectors. They are primarily used as a fertilizer to promote grass growth on rangeland, for forest fertilization and for site reclamation at sites like gravel pits and mines. Biosolids are not sewage sludge.

The land application of biosolids does not pose a risk to human health or the environment when they are applied in accordance with all of the requirements in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Biosolids should be handled in the same manner as animal manure; efforts should be taken to minimize the risk of accidental ingestion or body entry. The primary method of reducing risk is to limit direct exposure to biosolids.

— BC Ministry of Environment

 

CLASS B BIOSOLIDS NOT SAFE SAYS STUDY

On July 2, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that there may be public health risks from using processed sewage sludge as a commercial fertilizer. Approximately 60 percent of an estimated 5.6 million tons of dry sludge is used or disposed of annually in the United States.

Sludge also includes traces of household chemicals poured down drains, detergents from washing machines, heavy metals from industry, synthetic hormones from birth control pills, pesticides, and dioxins, a group of compounds that have been linked to cancer.

— University of Georgia research

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More
Regional District again rejects 3L Developments, amending regional growth strategy

Regional District again rejects 3L Developments, amending regional growth strategy

Regional District again rejects 3L Developments, amending regional growth strategy

By

The Comox Valley Regional District today rejected for a second time the Riverwood housing development.

3L Developments Inc. had applied in 2017 to the regional district board and again in May of this year to the regional district’s Electoral Areas Services Commission to support amending the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).

The company wants to develop about 500 acres in a triangle between the Browns and Puntledge rivers, but that isn’t allowed under the RGS. Their previous application was rejected by the regional district board in 2018.

But after vetting the current proposal with Comox Valley local governments, agencies and First Nations over the summer, the commission voted 2-1 to accept the regional district staff recommendation and refuse this new request.

The commission had referred the proposal to Comox Valley agencies, First Nations and the Courtenay, Cumberland and Comox municipalities for feedback. None of them responded in support of the proposal.

After a lengthy discussion that was at times testy, Commission members Daniel Arbour (Area A director) and Arzeena Hamir (Area B director) voted in favour of Arbour’s motion to refuse the request. Edwin Grieve (Area C director) voted against it.

Earlier in the meeting, Rob Buchan, a retired municipal planner representing 3L Developments, warned that the ownership group led by Dave Dutcyvich would pursue other interests on the property, including logging and gravel extraction.

Buchan presented the commission with a revised version of the proposed Riverwood development that moved the residential lots south of the Puntledge River and included space allotted for a Farmer’s Market and an ‘agriplex.’

He argued that because the local governments and agencies were referred the first version of their 2020 Riverwood proposal, but had not seen their revised version, that the referral feedback was invalid.

And he said that any feedback would only be valid if it was based on the merits of amending the RGS rather than focused “on some general concept” of the Riverwood plan.

Alana Mullaly, the CVRD’s senior manager for planning and protective services, said she was confident that local government planning directors and Chief Administration Officers understood the referral process and that they knew what they were looking at and why.

Arbour said the revised proposal felt a little like a “bait and switch” ploy by the company.

“There was an extensive public process in 2017-2018 that resulted in rejection. I expected this second kick at the can would have addressed those concerns with your best foot forward,” he said to Buchan.

3L Developments Inc. wants their property designated at a “settlement node” under the RGS that would allow denser subdivision.

But Arbour pointed out the company could apply to the City of Courtenay to expand its boundaries to include Riverwood, or to support an RGS amendment application to the regional district board.

 

TENSION AMONG DIRECTORS

Grieve, who chairs the commission, at times, invoked Biblical references and at other times seemed to chide the other directors for having “little mindsets.”

Grieve was enthusiastic during the meeting about working with 3L Developments to find a compromise that would add new parkland to the regional district’s portfolio. And making a deal would missout on a “once in a lifetime” opportunity.

“it’s all about the parkland,” he said. “It’s sad to see our natural jewels disappear.”

“Beseeching” Directors Hamir and Arbour to refer the 3L request to the full regional district board to consider initiating the amendment process, Grieve questioned the RGS sacred status.

“The RGS isn’t some chapter out of the Bible. It wasn’t handed down from the top of Mt. Washington,” he said. “It isn’t written in stone.”

He urged Hamir and Arbour to look at the “bigger picture” of gaining parkland and saving access to Stotan Falls, the popular summer swimming spot.

“We’ve got to get out of our little mindsets,” he said.

Hamir took exception to that comment, which she interpreted as Grieve calling her and Arbour small-minded.

 

WHAT THE REFERRALS SAID

None of the feedback sought by the Electoral Area Services Commission supported the application to amend the Regional Growth Strategy.

Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland and K’omoks First Nation all recommended denying 3L Developments proposal. Other agencies such as the Vancouver Island Health and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure raised numerous concerns about the Riverwood development.

Cumberland and Courtenay recommended rejecting the proposal because it is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Comox agreed, but added that the Town Council was interested “in a process which would return Stotan Falls to public access and use.”

K’omoks First Nations said the “application is located within the K’omoks statement of intent area; it is the interest of the K’omoks Nation to respectfully maintain our rights and access to the lands and resources throughout our territory.”

The Ministry of Transportation raised concerns about having a stormwater management plan, a geotechnical hazard assessment and confirmation of potable water and sewage disposal for each lot. They also raised the issue of dedicating the private logging road that bisects the property as a public road.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority had numerous concerns and recommendations. High on that list was that 3L Developments prove there is a sustainable water source on the property sufficient to meet the needs of the full development.

They also noted that Riverwood would be a car-dependent area that would never be walkable.

“We encourage the CVRD to consider this impact, contain urban sprawl and create complete, livable communities in line with Object 1A of the Regional Growth Strategy which states, local housing close to existing services,” VIHA wrote.

Other feedback included a comment from the Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness on the 3L Developments claim that Riverwood would provide affordable housing. The coalition rejected that claim.

“The interests of the coalition are unaffected as the issues of affordable and non-market housing do not appear to be addressed by the 3L proposal,” they wrote.

 

HOW WE GOT HERE

3L Developments Inc. purchased the approximately 500-acre property in 2007 and quickly logged portions of the site. In the same year, the company also proposed to develop a self-contained community to be called Riverwood.

At the time, the regional district was conducting a community-wide process to develop the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) that was adopted as Bylaw 120 in 2010.

The regional district board originally rejected the Riverwood proposal but reconsidered it in 2018 as an application to amend the RGS at the direction of the BC Supreme Court. The regional district rejected the proposal for a second time because it was inconsistent with the RGS. 3L Developments then started another legal action to overturn that decision, but it was unsuccessful in the courts.

The regional district then amended the RGS itself to restrict who could propose amendments to the RGS. Previously, the Comox Valley Regional District was the only one in the province that allowed private parties to apply for RGS amendments.

Now only a member municipality, the Electoral Area Services Commission or the full CVRD board can request an RGS amendment and they can do so on behalf of an external agency or private party.

In May of this year, 3L Developments tried again to get approval for Riverwood by asking the Electoral Areas Services Commission to support an amendment application and refer it to the full regional district board.

The Electoral Area Services Commission voted to seek feedback from other municipalities, external agencies and First Nations before making a decision.

After receiving feedback on the application and sharing it with 3L Developments, the CVRD staff report says the developers revised their application to eliminate commercial areas, increase residential units and add areas identified as “Farmers Market” and “Agriplex.”

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More