To the the CRD Chair, Board, Staff and member of the press and public,
Here’s a link to a devastating CNN story on PFAS contamination of farms in the US: https://www.cnn.com/2024/
Does the CRD Board really need any more evidence that the land application of biosolids causes inevitable harms to the environment and public health, or carries a significant risk of legal liability??
For all those Directors that have long fought against the land application of biosolids in the CRD: THANK YOU! I hope you can appreciate that the debate re. harms vs. benefits is officially over, and that you are unquestionably on the right side of history. The PBC expresses its gratitude for your evidence-based approach to this important issue, and the residents, farmers, and businesses of Greater Victoria thank you for having the foresight, courage and common sense to oppose the deliberate contamination of our natural environment and our region’s green belt with sewage sludge.
For all other CRD Directors that continue to ignore the overwhelming academic evidence of harms and instead promote the use of toxic biosolids in our forests and farms, what more can it possibly take for you to finally live up to your ethical and legal responsibilities to protect the environment and public health in our region? What additional data or evidence could you possibly need to see?
In light of the overwhelming evidence of inevitable harms stemming from the land application of biosolids, should it really be this hard to stop the CRD and Province from contaminating its own natural environment with toxic forever chemicals? Should it really be this hard to stop you from poisoning your own families, friends and neighbours??
How long can the CRD bury its head in biosolids and keep telling us all that they smell like roses?
Thankfully, the CRD Board has the opportunity to end this ridiculous proposition right now, and you can and must do so.
You can and must tell the Province that due to the overwhelming evidence of harms, land application is absolutely not an option for the short or long-term planning of biosolid management in the CRD; you can work with them to accelerate permitting and provide funding for a gasification plant at Hartland landfill; and – with the ultimate goal of overseeing honest and ethical outreach and re-establishing trust in the CRD’s role as environmental stewards of our region. And finally, you can and must direct staff to stop telling the residents, First Nations and other key stakeholders that this practice is safe and beneficial for the environment, which is so obviously a lie, and completely contradicted by the available academic evidence, along with recent reports re. legal action taken against Synagro in Texas, along with the CBC and CNN stories on PFAS contamination of farms and waterways resulting from biosolids.
You can all do the right thing right now to protect the health of residents, our regional environment, the integrity of our relationship with regional First Nations, and the CRD itself from liability and disrepute; or you can continue to ignore the evidence, lie to the public and find new and novel ways to contaminate our water, land and air with biosolids.
Ultimately, this is all the CRD Board’s choice to make, and we’re all watching and wondering why this seemingly simple choice should prove so very hard for you to make?
Best regards,
Philippe Lucas
Biosolid Free BC