Dear Chair Plant, CRD Board and Senior CRD Staff,

It is with great concern that I write you today regarding the recently launched public consultation on the long term biosolids management plan found at: https://getinvolved.crd.bc.ca/biosolids.

To provide a bit of background, I was a Victoria City Councillor and CRD Director from 2008-11, during which time I collaborated with local residents and environmental organizations like the Georgia Strait Alliance and the Sierra Club of BC to propose a ban on the land application of biosolids in the CRD, which was ultimately approved in 2011, and has been in place with minor variations/amendments ever since.

While I’m no longer an elected official, I continue to volunteer my time and expertise with Biosolid Free BC and the Peninsula Biosolids Coalition and other municipalities and organizations concerned about the land application of biosolids. As a PhD researcher, my academic experience is largely in the design of community-based outreach, education and assessment, including significant expertise in survey design. It is out of significant concern over this inadequate, ill-designed and heavily biased consultation process that I contact you today.

Despite ongoing debate over the contentious issue of land application in the CRD, there has actually been broad agreement between the CRD Board, community-based organizations like the Peninsula Biosolids Coalition and regional environmental organizations like the Sierra Club of BC on the following key facts specific to the land application of biosolids:

1. No one can claim that this is a safe practice, because it isn’t.  In fact, all CRD reports examining the land application of biosolids have found at least some level of risk in all parameters they examined. There is simply no existing academic research stating that the land application of biosolids is without risk to human and animal life, or the environment, because the risk is inherent and unavoidable.
2. There is no commercial market for animals grazed on land where biosolids have been applied, or for produce fertilized with biosolids.  Food producers like Campbells, Del Monte and Gerbers all have formal policies to not buy products fertilized with biosolids, and most major grocery store chains have policies not to stock or sell products tainted by sewage sludge, including Thrifty Foods/Sobeys, which is the largest employer on the island as well as the largest buyer and distributor of island-grown produce.
3. There is no public support for the land application of biosolids, nor has there ever been any, in fact there is very significant and ongoing public opposition. The Dogwood Initiative, the Sierra Club of BC, the Island Organic Producers Association, the Island Chef’s Collaborative, the Georgia Strait Alliance, the Farmlands’ Trust have all supported the CRD ban on the land application of biosolids.
4. The land application of biosolids is the flashpoint of a huge controversy throughout Canada, the US and around the world.  As a UVic Environmental Law Society review from 2013 found, this practice has resulted in lawsuits and all out bans on land application in Quebec and Ontario municipalities. More recently, the State of California has successfully sued 3M for over $10 billion dollars for contaminating its drinking water with PFAS, which is present in high concentrations in the region’s biosolids. If land application were to take place in the CRD, there’s no reason to believe the CRD (or the regions farmers) would be insulated from legal liability and associated lawsuits.

In reviewing the history of this significant public health and environmental issue at the CRD, another key point of agreement worth sharing is that at every single vote ever taken on the topic over the last 15 years, the majority of CRD Board members have voted against the land application of biosolids…sometimes unanimously, sometimes by a small majority, but nonetheless consistently and at every occasion. Moreover, many that did ultimately vote for land application have publicly stated they did so reluctantly, and only because they felt they had little or no choice. In other words, the Board’s many votes on this issue have ultimately and consistently been reflective of both the public’s stated concerns, as well as the many academic studies warning against the land application of biosolids.

However, in reviewing the CRD’s official public consultation on biosolids – the first of its kind ever undertaken in the CRD – you would never know any of the above, nor would you be appraised of the ongoing lobbying by local residents and environmental orgs to maintain the ban on land application, or the dozens of academic studies that have proven convincing enough in their findings of potential harms to sway the CRD Board consistently uphold the long standing ban on the land application of biosolids to this day.

In fact, all that you would know about the land application of biosolids is that it is common, cheap and regulated by the province. You would also learn that – despite the fact that biosolids are a toxic mix of tens of thousands of pollutants, including heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, dioxins, microplastics, and PAHS and PFAS that have been deemed far too dangerous to continue to discharge into our oceans – they magically become “beneficial” when applied to land.

Unfortunately, both the public outreach process as well as all of the materials that make up this consultation highlight an obvious bias in favor of land application, and would never pass academic peer-review due to the highly selective or inadequate information provided to participants.

For example, in looking through the materials provided on the website, you would read that “they contain nutrients, energy, and organic matter that can be recycled and used in various ways”, such as “fertilizer to promote tree and plant growth and as a soil additive to restore degraded industrial lands.”

However, you wouldn’t learn about that a recent study by Beni et al. (2023) found, there are significantly higher levels of microplastics (MPs) and other contaminants in runoff and surface water near sites that apply biosolids, which incidentally is done in far lower volumes than what is being done at Hartland or at the quarry site by the Nanaimo River. In fact, the paper concludes that groundwater quality and aquatic animals are unquestionably at risk: “Although in this study no vertical transport of MPs through the soil was observed over the study period, other studies have observed MP transport through soil layers and showed that depending on soil characteristics, crop type, and rainfall duration, MPs have the ability to migrate into deeper soil layers. Therefore, a portion of the smaller MPs may be transported through soil horizons resulting in groundwater contamination. This study provides evidence that runoff from fields with land applied biosolids transports MPs to surface water in agricultural regions, which may ultimately influence the health of aquatic organisms“.

Nor would you learn about another recent publication by Borthakur et al. (2022) found that both microplastics and PFAs, otherwise known as “forever chemicals” that are highly toxic/carcinogenic even in small doses, actually become airborne as a result of the land application of biosolids, posing both an environmental and public health threat via inhalation and groundwater contamination far from the initial application sites: “Biosolids can also release fine particles or colloids when subjected to natural drying and freeze/thaw cycles, which can carry PFAS to subsurface and groundwater at a concentration higher than the EPA advisory limits. Previous laboratory studies show that the presence of colloids released by these natural cycles can increase the PFAS concentration in water samples by 3-15 times. The same colloids can be suspended by the wind. Thus, microplastics in biosolids can be enriched with long-chained PFAS, similar to the other organic or inorganic particles or colloids.”

An in regards to the potential risks to human health, you would learn that “Biosolids do 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.”, despite the fact that OMRR only assess and regulated a small number of pathogens and heavy metals, and don’t in fact measure or restrict levels of PFAS, PAHs, microplastics, pharmaceuticals and thousands of other emerging Contaminants of Concern (CoSs), which would also have been good information to share with the public.

And you certainly wouldn’t read about a study by Harrison et al. (2002) examining the environmental and public health risks posed by the land application of biosolids which found that “Disposal of sewage sludges via spreading on agricultural, forest, and mine lands is a growing practice. The complex mix of biological agents and chemical contaminants contained in sewage sludges exposes workers and people living near sites where they are used as soil amendments to risks that are poorly understood. These risks include acute risks as well as chronic risks posed by potential long-term exposure. Recent reports from neighbors to land application sites of illness and even death suggest that pathogens, endotoxins and contaminants coming from land application sites may pose an acute and immediate risk.“

While this report focuses on Class B biosolids, the authors conclude that while “Class A sludges have been treated to further reduce pathogens, but would not have reduced levels of chemical contaminants or endotoxins. Thus, the potential health risks posed by Class A sludges associated with chemical contaminants and endotoxins may warrant reconsideration of putting them on land.“

The authors go on to suggest the risk is so great that “Health professionals in communities faced with sludge application must be made aware of the potential risks and symptoms experienced by neighbors elsewhere so that proper diagnoses can be made and the true magnitude and nature of illness attributable to land application of sewage sludges can be assessed. Information should be provided to local health departments and medical professionals in areas where land application of sludges takes place so that they are prepared to respond to reported illnesses.“

And in reading the section about the long-standing CRD ban on the land application of biosolids, you would learn that “In 2011, prior to introducing wastewater treatment in the core area, the CRD Board of Directors passed a biosolids land application ban based on the concerns of members of the public.” However, you would not learn that the region’s most respected environmental organizations – including the Georgia Strait Alliance, Dogwood Initiative and many others – supported and lobbied for the ban, and continue to support it to this day.

Nor would you have learned that BC’s current Minister of the Environment Mr. George Heyman actually sent a letter in support of the proposed ban on land application of biosolids in 2011 while he was Executive Director of the Sierra Club of BC, stating that “At a time when the public is more and more supportive of, and aware of, the importance of local food production, the land application of bio-solids seems to directly contradict the responsibility of the CRD to protect the region’s farmland, natural environment and public health.” (see here).

Nor would you learn that the UVic Environmental Society reviewed this matter in 2011 and then again in 2013 (see here), concluding that “Approving the land application of biosolids may open up various parties to legal liability if it results in public health or environmental problems”. The consultation materials also fail to mention the State of California’s successful $10 billion lawsuit against 3M for the contamination of drinking water, or the attribution of deadly algae blooms off the US coast to the land application of biosolids, finding that the environmental costs of land application far outweigh potential cost savings:“the cost of removing nutrients from surface waters using rural constructed stormwater treatment areas is approximately $26 per lb. for TN and $130 per lb. for TP.^[5] If land application costs of biosolids average $50 – $125 per dry ton,^[6] then the land application cost of $15.5 M – $38.8M is creating a $314.6 M annual burden to the State for nutrient TN and TP surface water clean-up. Additionally, TP accumulates in soils, increasing legacy phosphorus annually.”

Nor would you learn that the environmental and public health impacts of land application have resulted in the EPAs announcement that it intends to put in place stricter PFAS regulations in 2024 out of concern for public health, and that Health Canada is in the process of adding PFAS as a class to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Despite being readily available online, the public consultation material has somehow missed the fact that this has become a serious environmental issue in Europe as well, and according to “Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture” from May 22, 2023, total bans on the land application of biosolids have been enacted by a number of countries in response to environmental contamination and impacts on public health: “Some Member States have banned the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, e.g. the Brussels and Flanders regions of Belgium and Slovakia (the latter has established a policy where sewage sludge is treated for energy recovery), the Netherlands (since 1995), some regions of Austria (Vienna, Salzbury and Tyrolia). Germany and Austria focus on phosphorus recycling from sewage sludge and sewage sludge ash after the incineration of sewage sludge through mono-incineration.”

And while you might take some comfort that the CRD has formed a TCAC made up of regional experts to inform the Board on such issues, you may be surprised to learn that the TCAC was never asked to review, vet or contribute to the material and information provided as part of this consultation, first seeing it late last week when the CRD made it available online along with the rest of the public. As a result, many members of the TCAC have expressed frustration at the process and the fact their expertise was not effectively engaged, and that they now feel they have been used to bolster up the illusion of public consultation that has become an all-too-common practice in the CRD.

Finally, the options provided to the public for consideration lack adequate information to enable informed decisions. Specifically, the options overstate the benefits of land application options, never even cite evidence of potential harms or the ongoing public and Board opposition to land application, and perhaps most egregiously, the options simply lists costs per tonne, rather than taking a fulsome triple bottom line approach, despite this very Board listing the following as one of its priorities for this term in a document titled CRD Board Priorities 2023-26: “Progress on adaptation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and triple-bottom line solutions that consider social, environmental and economic impacts.”

So in light of overwhelming evidence that this consultation process is heavily biased, highly selective and completely inadequate in the information shared with the public, neither transparent nor accountable, nor in any way representative of the actual historical and current facts re. the CRD Boards position re. the land application of biosolids, what should be done to rectify this unjustifiable situation?

Well, the only good news about this consultation to date is that the steps to remedy the situation are well within the Boards purview, and can all be addressed with a bit of time and commitment to the core values CRD Board members have committed and aspire to:

1. CRD Board should call for an end to this flawed and obviously biased process, immediately take down the consultation website/materials, dismiss the company hired to develop the materials for this consultation, and thereby end this sham effort and limit the associated reputational damage to the CRD and Board.
2. CRD Board should immediately proceed with a 3^rd party assessment of the current scientific and legal understanding of the risks and benefits of various methods to dispose of biosolids, as had previously been moved by Mayor Desjardins.
3. The CRD should have all resulting materials reviewed by the TCAC it formed for this very purpose, in recognition of the knowledge and expertise that exists in our community, and its self-imposed mandate to be “transparent and accountable in governance”, and to “foster greater civic participation among diverse community members”, which are both further commitments this CRD Board made a priority during this term.
4. CRD should restructure the consultation to include actual opportunities for in-person engagement, along with online options, in order to “foster greater civic participation among diverse community members”, which is yet another priority this Board set forth for this term.

How the CRD disposes of biosolids resulting from sewage treatment is one of the most pressing environmental decisions facing this region. Having long ago decided that biosolids are too unsafe to dispose of in our oceans, it is totally irresponsible to ignore a growing body of evidence showing the high potential for harms to our environment and public health associated with land application of biosolids, and to misrepresent this issue and associated controversies via this completely inadequate consultation process. The academic material I cite in this email is all peer-reviewed and easy to find; there is simply no defence for excluding it from public consideration.

As a former CRD Director, I’m so disappointed that the CRD have such low regard for the intelligence of residents and the integrity of this public consultation process as to allow this to happen, and I emphatically urge the CRD Board to denounce this sham consultation and to give clear, unambiguous direction to staff to proceed with proper consultation guided by triple bottom line assessments of options, and informed by the current state of scientific understanding in regards to the potential harms and benefits of various options for the safe and beneficial user of biosolids.

Best regards,
Philippe Lucas PhD
Former City of Victoria Councillor and CRD Director, 2008-2011
Co-founder, Biosolid Free BC

—

Note from Creatively United: If you wish to contact the CRD regarding this issue you can find their contact information here.