Stephen’s efforts for better effluent were appreciated
by Allan G Dacombe to the Sooke News Mirror October 15 2003

Editor:

At last Monday night's council meeting Coun. John Stephen made a valiant attempt, supported by two other councillors, to ensure our community would have the ultimate sewage treatment installed.

Sadly, council voted four to three for Sooke installing a secondary treatment plant, a move that can only be a stop gap solution and will inevitably require upgrading in the future. The approved installation does meet and exceed, in some degree, the requirements of the approving authority.

Coun. Stephen made an excellent, albeit short, explanation of an alternative for a better and cleaner effluent result at no additional cost to the lesser, and majority approved solution.

Other concerns were expressed by the public on related matters but the four councillors left over from the first Sooke council would not budget. If the referendum properly describes all alternatives only then can our citizens be truly informed.

Sewer bulletins provide few answers, cause more questions
by Fred von Ilberg to the Sooke News Mirror October 15 2003

Editor:

The first of a series of sewer bulletins, as issued by the administration of spin and obfuscation, raises many more questions than provide answers.

The extra capital costs of $2.5 million, covered by letters of credit for the extension of sewer boundaries, are to be accepted without a bylaw in place or at minimum a council initiative? Other than Sunriver will this one time contribution free the future property owners of all payment obligations for the next 20 years?

By now the municipal finance authority must have given an indication as to the repayment amount annually over 20 years for the $6.2 million, why not inform the affected public of about 1,800 households of this and the expected ancillary costs?

The definite concerns about this important project stem from the paucity and opaqueness of accessible, real information. Relatively few people have access to the district's Internet Web site and embarrassingly few questions can actually be answered by the mayor and administration.

Editor:

Sooke council and staff continue to support decisions which leave their credibility in tatters.

Not wishing to turn over too many ancient stones, four recent issues come to mind.

First, there is the application for an apartment/assisted living complex on Goodmere Road behind Village Markets. Never mind that it contravenes both the Official Community Plan and the Harbour and Basin Plan, but more importantly perhaps, it should be considered in terms of today's argument as to why sewers are necessary.

This application has received third reading with an on-site treatment plant and field deemed acceptable to council and staff in the event that sewers do not happen.

If an on-site treatment plant is acceptable so close to the harbour, how can residents with such plants be forced to disconnect and hook up to the sewer?

Second, council and staff had no objection to a subdivision application to create an additional lot at the end of Possession Point Road with the building setback from the harbour reduced from 15m to 7.5m. The new residence will be served by a septic tank and field on a lot of 1,300 square metres. This was accepted by all members of council.

However, should you happen to land in the specified area, even if you reside miles from the harbour, your septic tank or treatment plant and field will be deemed unacceptable and you will be required to hook up to the sewers.

Double standard? You bet!

Third, remember the two informational meetings held in July, when the public was urged to come and present their questions on the sewer proposal. Mayor Evans told the first meeting that all questions would be recorded to be answered in September. Question after question was met with stony silence. It was an embarrassing waste of time.

In September we were told that those who had asked the questions would have answers mailed to them. Now we understand that answers will not be forthcoming at all. The assumption is either that council does not have the answers, or that there is no wish to share them with the public.

And finally there is that wonderful survey for which we paid $8,500, and which the research group stated was "to be very beneficial to the district as it will assist in identifying groups and areas of strong support and opposition within the targeted community."

The public has received a brief outline of survey results. However, the real meat of the survey is for the eyes and ears of council and staff alone. Even though residents gave their time and privacy to this thing, they will be unable to study the resulting "spin." As stated in the proposal "Pollara will be available to consult on the development of materials that are to be shared with the media."

Editor:

I admire the generosity and environmental concern of Ken Pungente, who has stated his willingness to contribute to tertiary treatment for Sooke's proposed sewer plant. He has always shown himself to be a public-spirited citizen.

But before he puts up earnest money, he would do well to ask himself just which particular contaminants he is concerned about.

Editor:

In case people haven't heard some time ago we hired a town planner.

This person is paid money by the community to make recommendations to council on how to set up a town in the most productive way possible. This person has spent many years in university to study urban planning and its development. These people are trained from other experts that have built and studied in every city and town ever built. So the reason little towns like ours hire one of these people so we don't have to flounder around and make a whole bunch of mistakes during a trial and error process.

So my problem is why are we making it so difficult to move forward as a community? We have our expert. We pay him money, therefore shouldn't we listen to him?

Do we want WRATH (Worried Residents Against Tax Hikes) recommendations to dominate our meetings? Please, let's move in the direction that our planner's recommendations take us.

Editor:

Hooray for Tia Leschke's letter in Oct. 24's Sooke News Mirror. As a new owner of a property in the designated sewer area I too am very perturbed by the sparse information that has been provided to us.

I took note of the approximate quotes for hookups and was really incensed by the blasé attitude of our local council in supporting these figures. Would you go out and purchase a new car if you were told by the salesperson that it might be in the neighbourhood of between $20,000 and $40,000? I think not.

Most consumers would like a concrete dollar figure, but alas we designated sewer people don't have that ability as we are "blown-off" time and time again with our serious questions as to hookup costs, payment schedules, timelines, connection fees, sewer management regarding the outfall and effluent condition, forced hookups and last but most serious, each and everyone of us homeowner's yearly taxes going UP by approximately $650.

Why should we, the chosen few, pay for all of Sooke? I hear time and time again that the sewers will bring in more benefits to the residents of Sooke, which tells me that every person living in Sooke should be paying for the upcoming sewers even if they are not connected at this time! We are all benefiting, or so the mayor and council stipulate - remember that.

For all of you who live on the outside of the designated area I gather happiness reigns in your households as you don't have to be pressured into paying extra for any of the above - is that fair?

Editor:

It is my understanding, based on numerous questions put to and answered by helpful District of Sooke staff this past week, that the current plan considered by council is for Sooke's capital cost portion of the sewer system - a whopping $400 of the so-called "annual user fee" - to be paid by a parcel tax levied on property owners in the proposed service area (re: "Those paying most can't vote," Sooke News Mirror, Sept. 24).

A parcel tax is the same tax per property, regardless of its value, size, or purpose. Capital costs for businesses with larger sewage requirements are considerably more for on-site sewage treatment facilities than single family homeowners who need much smaller and simpler systems.

But under Sooke's proposed sewerage system, all users pay an equal share of the capital cost, regardless of the type of property. This means that single family homeowners are unintentionally subsidizing the costs of the larger businesses; in effect, corporate citizens are paying less, not more.

If a general property tax were used instead to pay our municipal government's share of the infrastructure improvement for our city, businesses in the town core who need and benefit most from sewers would pay 6.42 per cent more per $1,000 assessed value than single family homeowners for the capital costs facilitating Sooke's anticipated growth. And with a general property tax, the burden on Broom Hill owners included in the extended area for the purpose of reducing costs to the town core property owners (Stantec's Village Sewerage Study 2001 - Addendum to Technical report, p. 24) and those with lower incomes will perhaps be more bearable, keeping in mind that our connection fees and annual user charges (justifiably based on property type and volume of waste to be handled) will not be shared outside the service area.

Editor:

I am relieved to read that other taxpayers (Sooke News Mirror, Sept. 17) are also concerned about the lack of response to questions by taxpayers about the proposed sewer.

Municipal staff requested (which our council has endorsed) a specific sewer related meeting to hear taxpayers' concerns. In fact, I now fear the "benefits of a sewer outfall" propaganda will only heat up again.

Remember, there is a lot of experience to this process of manipulating communities into having sewers. There are huge dollars to be made and money can dictate if we are caught snoozing.

Unfortunately, our council hasn't responded by providing the answers to these justified questions. Why proceed any further without the answers? Is it because they don't like the questions and concerns which council itself solicited?

I am not against having sewers. What I don't agree with is the apparent open disregard of answering taxpayers' questions in a timely manner. Council has a responsibility to ensure this process is transparent, even if it is not popular with municipal staff, some fellow councillors or Sooke's business community. Is an outfall the best choice? Should a small number of residential taxpayers be footing the bill for something that is being "sold" as a benefit to all of Sooke? Why doesn't all of Sooke pay for it then?

Just because Mayor Evans has offered so-called "payment options": does it make it right that residents with a good septic system be forced to pay for something they do not need? Should many of these residents who cannot afford all the costs involved (existing septic system disconnection fees, hook-up fees in the thousands of dollars, tax increases of $600 per year, maintenance fees and higher density development in their residential neighbourhoods) be subjected to "forced" hook-ups? What will happen to residents when they must sell their homes due to these costs? I have spoken to Realtors who say sewers will not increase the value of a residential home. Dollars and sense, my family cannot afford the associated costs, plain and simple. What will happen to us?

Apathy is a dangerous symptom of a confused an uninformed community. Ask your community for immediate answers to taxpayer questions and make the answers public. Many of us have the same questions and a public disclosure would serve all affected.

Editor:

A couple of months ago I wrote to this paper wondering why only the people in the specified sewer area were going to have to pay for a project that supposedly will benefit all of Sooke. I copied my letter to the mayor and all council members, using the e-mail addresses I found on the District of Sooke Web site. At this time I have not received a reply from any of them.

Editor:

In several editorials the Sooke News Mirror urges the public to get needed information about the proposed sewer system.

However, this simple demand seems to be running into obstacles. Firstly each household was promised individual information about hook up, costs and so on as early as about 2001. Nothing up to this moment. People are in limbo and worried about their individual costs.

A series of questions were asked by numerous residents in a council meeting dedicated entirely to the sewer question on July 7. Eight were not answered, but answers were promised by September by the mayor. According to Sooke News Sept. 10, these answers are still outstanding. Instead we have now a costly survey, asking questions, so "that council gets a general sense how those in the service area feel."

Council and staff should have a "general sense" and know by now what people want: detailed information about all aspects of the proposed sewer from council to the public and not the other way around. As questions of concerned residents are mostly asked in public meetings information should be relayed in public meetings and not in letters to single persons. Neighbourhood representatives won't do because it just adds another layer of semi-officials to cloud the issues.

Editor:

Kudos to Ted Davies for his letter entitled, "Sewer benefits swamp Gardner's neighbours" (News Mirror, Aug. 27). I would like to reinforce his points with my first-hand experience with a costly, septic system nightmare.

We moved into our current residence on Talc Place, in Broom Hill, 14 years ago. I spent the next four years working very hard on my yard and garden, when a serious problem arose with our septic system. Having come from Ontario, I had neither heard of septic systems, nor did I have any idea of the devastation and cost if something went wrong. We were told that our entire back yard would have to be dug up, and our system replaced. We were also told that the $13,000 price tag would have to be paid up-front; therefore, we had to re-mortgage our home.

After the installation, there was nothing left in the yard but pipes, pumps and tanks. We could not enjoy the space for many years. Since then, we have encountered further difficulties, including digging up sections of the yard repeatedly to install an extra tank and new pumps, not to mention the frequent drainage costs. Currently, I can only do two loads of laundry a day for a household of six. The costs continue to mount as we have now spent over $15,000 for the privilege of owning a house with a septic system. Every time I walk out my back door to hang up my clothes and smell something foul (which is often), I shudder, wondering if it is coming from my yard or my neighbours.

To those people who have been arguing against the new sewer system, heed my warning. My septic system worked fine at one time too, but then my entire yard had to be dug up at a cost of 10s of 1,000s of dollars. Whether your system works or not, how many of you are prepared to spend $15,000 up front when something inevitably goes wrong? If you own a home with a failing system, your property value plummets and your investment disappears. All Broom Hill residents are in jeopardy of facing a similar fate at some point; therefore, I encourage all residents to vote yes for a new sewer system before you have your own septic nightmare to tell.

[So, who is responsible for the design and installation of faulty septic systems?]

Editor:

In the early days of Sooke people pulled together giving true meaning to the slogan "Sooke looks after its own" and the Sooke Community Association was formed. They celebrated the growth of our community by creating All Sooke Day and money raised helped build the community hall. Fundraising toward the hall came from continuing All Sooke Day. The community association played a major part in the development of a very small community to what we have today.

We now have an elected mayor and council whose vision is for the future of Sooke. Let's give them support by attending meetings, asking questions that show courtesy for all and vote on issues.

Our previous or present council would not have applied for sewer funding if it was not a major step for the betterment of Sooke. Advantages include long-term care for seniors, a Laundromat to promote tourism, industry thus creating employment, and industry and business to help pay the tax load.

Sewer letters are encouraging, needed

By Lois Gardner to Sooke News Mirror, September 3, 2003

It’s great that more people are writing in about the sewer issue, as it really needs discussing.

I sincerely apologize to Ted Davies and any other of my neighbours who want, need, and can afford a sewer I sure did not mean to say we are all in the same boat regarding the benefits of it.

Sooke needs the sewer, and I want to vote yes to it, but can’t afford to, because I’m still paying for the 2001 field I’ve got.

Both Mr. Davies’ point of view and mine are valid and appropriate, and it falls to council to work out some way that we can all be fairly treated. The simplest way would be a sliding scale of payment depending on the age of the current septic system, and the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. There are only a few 100 houses in the specified area; it’s not rocket science to create several groups of properties, with different levels of taxation based on use of the system.

Besides fairness to taxpayers, there are other questions that need answering.

1. Is the proposed sewer picking up all sources of pollution entering the Harbour and Basin?
2. Is a treatment plant with ocean outfall absolutely NOT going to impact fishery, tourism or First Nation? Is there a better option for disposal of waste water?
3. Why is a private company a better option than the CRD, to build and operate the treatment plant? EPCOR is not investing any money from the sounds of it, but as a private company they intend to make a profit. Will they be billing residents separately for sewage treatment, and have their hands permanently in our pockets, or will they operate on a fixed contract with the district?

This is not an issue that needs fighting about, it’s simply a case of making it work for everyone, and giving us the details on what the "deal" is, before we vote.

Council needs to answer sewer questions

By Fred E. von Ilberg to Sooke News Mirror, September 3, 2003

On July 7, I submitted to council and administration at the public meeting, a list of questions, which can only be answered by council and administration.

It would appear to date, that none of these questions have been addressed. It is of utmost importance that these questions are answered in full before the telephone survey starts, so that the public in the serviced areas is well informed and can speak to the matter informed and intelligently.

A further submission was addressed to council by another party on July 23, which also appears to go unanswered. Both of these submissions are public documents, forming part of council’s minutes and are available.

WRATH [Worried Residents Against Tax Hikes] Membership doesn’t include council

By Gail Hall to Sooke News Mirror, September 3, 2003

The News Mirror of Aug. 27 contained a letter credited to Loretta Acreman.

Mrs. Acreman is entitled to her views and the freedom to express them. I would, however, suggest that she get her facts straight before putting them on paper.

There are no council members included in the membership of Worried Residents Against Tax Hikes (WRATH). To state otherwise and tie the word "corrupt" to any member of the current council is defamatory.

Even if a member of WRATH were to run for office and be elected, there would be no impropriety. We still have the constitutional right to assemble, even as elected officials.

The same edition includes a letter credited to Ted Davies, who makes a comparison between the homeowners’ cost of the sewers and the taxpayers’ cost for the $6 million for the pool. He remarks that the pool costs did not break the bank on his taxes.

He should remember that the $6 million for the pool is being repaid by taxpayers from East Sooke to Port Renfrew and includes all of Sooke, not just the estimated 800 homes or 2,000 residents that will pay for sewers.

Some sewer survey questions might already be answered
by Lois Gardner to the Sooke News Mirror August 20, 2003

Editor:

Regarding the $8,500 survey of homeowners in the sewer specified area, it may be too little, too late, but I guess we will see what comes of it. For free, here is what they will probably be hearing on my street:

1. My septic field works fine, so I don't need a sewer.
2. I will have to dig up half my yard (driveway, basement) to get to the
street - this will cost many thousands of dollars.

3. I would like to help the community, but I can't afford the connection, let alone the extra $650 on my taxes every year.
4. Give me one good reason why should I vote for something that is going to cost me a lot of money, and which I don't need anyway?

Everybody with stars in their eyes over the 11 million in "free money" have to understand homeowners in the core are not receiving an $11.6 million gift, we are being offered a $6 million dollar debt, and we have all figured this out by now.

Areas outside core should be asked what they want
By Tom Gable to Sooke News Mirror August 20, 2003

Editor:

With all that is being said and done about sewers, I have one question that I feel needs an answer.

What about the people who are not in the area that is to be surveyed or are in the area where sewers are not slated to be installed? It is fine to say that the core of Sooke and Broomhill are the focus - the need is there. What about the "other parts" of Sooke whose residents aren't even being asked anything?

By Anita Voss, to Sooke News Mirror on August 13, 2003

Proponents of the sewer proposal in its present form flood us with more or less romantic ideas about how the harbour of Sooke will get "cleaned up" and clean enough for shellfish harvesting once the sewer system is in.

These assumptions make it even into the official announcements put in the Sooke News Mirror by District of Sooke staff (Sooke News June, July as "Sewer Information Update"). Here are some sobering facts: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, provides maps, showing shellfish closures from the tip of Saanich Peninsula to and including Pedder Bay and explains "areas closed to harvesting of all Bivalve Molluscs due to sewage contamination." Most of these closed areas are serviced by sewers. In addition DFO closed practically all the east side of Vancouver Island to shellfish harvesting due to sanitary contamination. It is difficult to imagine how DFO will treat Sooke Harbour (closed at the present) and Otter Point differently once the outfall pipe is in.

Ultraviolet radiation does not improve things much, because DFO considers all other polluting factors besides bacterial contamination in its decision for closures, especially after inevitable occasional failures of the sewer plant system.

Residents who oppose the sewers are apparently "stuck in the Dark Ages" as recent letters to the editor of this newspaper claim. On the contrary, very few people in Sooke seem to be opposed to "sewers." However, numerous residents, including myself, are deeply worried about the present sewer plan with its secondary treatment and outfall in the Juan de Fuca Strait. Similar secondary treatment plants were built in central Europe at the end of the 19th century, with outfalls into the main water bodies. As a result, by the 1950-60 even large rivers like the Elbe and Rhine were green and brown soups. From then on new various tertiary systems were built and outfalls were not allowed, be it into the sea or into the rivers unless it had drinking water standards. Most water from European sewer plants is recycled now either for drinking water or irrigation.

Letter by Gail Hall to the Sooke News Mirror, July 23, 2003

Editor:

Some thoughts left over from the sewer "information" meetings of July 7-8:
Several residents expressed the view that because all of Sooke will benefit from sewers, all of Sooke should pay.

It was a thought I shared, wondering if with an attitude adjustment at the council table, the whole community might indeed get behind the project.

This idea quickly fell victim to some sober second thoughts.

The federal and provincial governments have awarded $11.6 million to the District of Sooke, not to the few who reside in the specified area, but to all of us.

Accordingly, my family donates our share to the sewer project, and feel quite sure that it will cover any benefits which we may gain from the project.

The Sooke News Mirror of July 16 stated that Councillor John Farmer became frustrated during the meeting because many of the questions were being asked by people who do not reside in the specified area.

This is indeed true, and if and when we receive answers to our questions, should we also behave like petulant children because those supplying the answers will be elected officials or staff members, the majority of whom also reside outside the specified area?

For the first time since incorporation, our administration will not be able to railroad a decision through. If the referendum is to succeed, council and staff must accept the public as equal partners, involve them in the process, provide information in a clear and complete manner, and respect that there are differing opinions on this huge initiative.

Council will have to dig their way through a mountain of mistrust, cynicism and fear. It will take a serious attitude adjustment, and a more conciliatory approach than we have witnessed to date.

Councillors Barry, OBriain, Morino and Stephen have put the process in motion by standing up for a referendum. It is a promising beginning.

By Tia Leschke to the Sooke News Mirror, July 23, 2003

Editor:

I read in the council information that sewers are going to be a huge benefit to Sooke. Our public health is at risk if we don't build them. The harbour and basin need to be cleaned up to protect fish habitat and recreational values. We need the development of a vibrant and economically sustainable town core. We need a long-term care facility.

My question is, since this appears to benefit all Sooke residents, why are only the poor suckers in the core area being asked to pay for them? Why not all Sooke residents, which would certainly lighten the individual load? I see in another sewer article that only those in the specified area are allowed to vote.

Would that still be the case if the whole community was being asked to foot the bill? It sure doesn't seem fair to me, especially when some of the councillors who are deciding these things won't have to pay because they don't live in the core area.

I have also not seen any explanation as to why everyone in the area must hook up at the same time, as soon as the system is built, even those with brand new or perfectly working systems. If the system was being paid for by the whole community, whether they were hooked up or not, people could hook up either when they could afford it or whenever their septic system was tested and failed, whichever came first. I understand the CRD has plans to require regular testing of septic systems anyway.

‘How Soon’ should be only sewer question

Letter by Herb Haklane to the Sooke News Mirror, July 23, 2003

Editor:

Well, here we go again debating the sewer question - the money, the environment, our options ...

The money one is easy. We have at least two years before the sewers can be operational. When your roof is worn out or the 1970s shag carpet is too stained, what do we do? We budget for it! Let's be ants here and not grasshoppers.

Then there is the environmental outfall issue that we are concerned about. The harbour at this point is so polluted that shellfish must be treated before you can eat them. The white foam and sludge on the beaches is contaminated from faulty septic systems.

The outfall will be treated and expelled into open ocean at one part per billion. The real environmental question I have is when did you all last attend a Greenpeace meeting or Sierra Club jamboree? Better yet, when did you last buy the pricey cleaner gasoline for your car?

It is nice to be political or environmentally concerned, but lose the double standard.

Our options are these. Install sewers and move forward just like the day electricity was available and running water was embraced. Or stay in the Dark Ages and when your washer breaks down you can go to the creek because the laundry only exists in the real world.

If we all think hard, our only question should be, "How soon can we install it?"

Herb Haldane

[Methinks that this fallacious Herb has not only gone overboard with dichotomies and erroneous analogies, but it is painfully obvious that Herb also doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about and has no understanding of the true science of the situation. Looks like this uninformed person just got suckered into writing another form letter to the mirror. Maybe he is dazzled by the big bucks……I wonder who is really footing the bill….and who will profit……]

Editor:

Well, hats off to Councillors Barry, Morino, OBriain, and Stephen for ensuring that there will be a proper vote on the proposed sewer and ocean outfall. In voting down the staff recommendation for the council initiative, they have affirmed the basics of democracy i.e. a secret ballot and one person one vote.

Editor:

Sooke municipality is joyous now that it will receive $11.6 million funded under the Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Program. The program's first priority is "green" local government infrastructure. The funding is meant to encourage the use of 21st century technologies, new approaches and best practices.

The timing is perfect. The opportunity to be innovative is at hand.

It is now a well known fact that the water supply from the Sooke Lake reservoir is limited.

Not having a sewer system in place, Sooke is in the unique position for a municipality to install an alternate system that addresses the immediate issue of handling its sewage and at the same time reduce water consumption.

It can be done by installing a treatment plant and distribution system designed to reclaim used water for reuse and recycling. The benefits are a reduction in wastewater flows and overall consumption.

It is legal and accepted for industrial, commercial, and institutional applications if the system complies with the Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) and building codes.

Imagine this. Start by installing a treatment and collection system designed for water reuse for the core area. Then in the future expand to other outlying areas. Subdivisions are ideal for a small treatment system to serve a variety of water needs. This is planning for a "green" future.

Currently, the Ministry of Health has not yet accepted individual homeowners to recycle water but pilot projects for that specific application are now being monitored favourably by the ministry. It is only a matter of time when it will be accepted.

The older municipalities in the Greater Victoria Area are faced with crumbling sewage infrastructures and are stressed to finance repairs. Victoria is criticized for sending raw sewage out into the Juan de Fuca Strait. Sooke can avoid that bad press by not following the same path as Victoria. I think tourists would look favourably on Sooke if it took a "green" approach.

It's a golden opportunity for Sooke to take leadership by implementing modern 21st "green" technologies reflecting forward new thinking. That's what the funding encourages. It could be a model municipality on how it dealt with sewage problems not done by others in British Columbia.

Bring this to the attention of the Sooke council and your MLA, Brian Kerr.

Editor:

Regarding the upcoming referendum on our sewer plans: I believe a sewer system in Sooke is going to benefit Sooke as a whole and everyone should be involved in paying for it, not just the few people who will be on-line to begin with. Eventually, as the years go by, most everyone will be on-line.

I am fortunate enough to have two properties in Sooke. One is in Broom Hill and will likely be involved in the original setup. The other is in Saseenos, which likely won't be on-line in my lifetime, but I am willing to pay the extra taxes on both places to get the ball rolling.

Sooke is known for its volunteerism, so let's everybody "volunteer" a bit of their taxes for the benefit of making Sooke a better place to live.

Just a thought.

Did this guy just win the lottery or what? Does he think that every one in Sooke can afford this? Does everyone in Sooke want this? Does Sooke need this? Where is his head at? Doesn't he understand that sewage outfalls are the silent killers of the oceans? What about the fecal coliforms from boats, birds, hobby farms? Methinks that this guy will somehow personally profit from a sewer system in Sooke. It always seems to come down to personal greed...isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Shame on him!