City put at risk
In 2008, City of Powell River Mayor Stewart Alsgard designated Councillor Jim Palm as the portfolio holder for Public Works. That responsibility remains with him today.
Palm’s function in that role is to concern himself with and report to council about such things as: the city’s main water supply line from Haslam Lake and the Westview wastewater treatment plant [“Opposition to wastewater co-treatment surfaces,” October 8].
With respect to the city’s main water supply line, in 2006, the city was provided with an engineering consultant’s report advising that, due to its age, this critical asset should be replaced. That report noted the city was concerned the ground above the 900 millimetre waterline had settled and ponds had formed which would impede emergency repairs, that this condition could present a severe risk of contamination due to surface water intrusion should the waterline break and line pressure drop.
Eight years later and just weeks before the 2014 city elections, Palm announced that the renewal of the waterline is now his number one priority.
The failure of council to replace this critical waterline has and continues to put this community at risk.
Regarding the Westview wastewater treatment plant, Palm and council’s inaction ensures that this plant cannot operate within its environmental permit. This is so because they are choosing not to renew the remaining 50 per cent of the plant’s treatment membranes.
Why, you ask?
We know in April 2010, council agreed with Catalyst Paper Corporation to enter into a 20-year contract to treat the city’s liquid waste in Catalyst’s effluent treatment system.
Palm recently acknowledged the city is not compliant on the liquid waste side and its hands are tied because of a lack of funding.
Factually, the city’s Sewer Reserve Fund balance in early 2014 was $4,270,928, and the remaining 50 per cent of plant membranes can be renewed at a cost of $900,000, allowing that plant to comply with its current environmental permit.
On November 15, the electorate will have the opportunity to decide if Palm and other council members are serving the public effectively regarding these services.
George Orchiston
Joyce Avenue
Prices remain high
I have just returned from a week in Vancouver over the Thanksgiving holiday, where prices at the gas pumps are $1.26 per litre and lower. For some time now the price of oil has come down significantly and is reflected in the pumps outside of Powell River.
Why have the three gas stations in Powell River remained at $1.39 per litre [“Fueling discontent,” July 29, 2009] for so long and only recently dropped two cents?
Arnold Nouwens
Manitoba Avenue
Taking both sides
Three years ago, Premier Christy Clark declared BC’s LNG (liquefied natural gas) industry “the opportunity of a lifetime” for the province. To date, no LNG company has made final investment decisions.
Petronas has complained about “lack of incentives” and Apache Corp has pulled out of its partnership with Chevron in an LNG plant in Kitimat. One wonders why.
As the Centre for Policy Alternatives points out, “Because companies can fully deduct billions in capital costs before starting to pay the full seven per cent income tax, any cost over-runs will be paid for by reduced future LNG income taxes. This is important because in the LNG industry, huge cost over-runs (especially in Australia) have been the norm.”
So if we, as taxpayers, subsidize the LNG industry, what do we get for the investment, especially given fluctuating commodity prices and the rash of new LNG export facilities coming on stream across the world?
Enter Gordon Wilson. He has been hired by the Premier at $12,500 a month to sell LNG [“Wilson receives plum job,” October 30, 2013]. He will talk about what it can do for municipalities and how it is not environmentally unfriendly. He will counter such statements as “The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose is the fact that the markets we are told will buy all we can supply may not materialize as we think, and even if they do, the price they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.” He will most certainly refute statements such as “Expanded LNG production also comes with a significant environmental cost. The impact of an expanded hydrocarbon economy will certainly speed up global warming and cause us to build a dependency on a revenue stream that originates from processes that are poisoning our atmosphere.”
Wait one moment. The LNG naysayer was Wilson himself—before the $12,500 a month.
Which Gordon Wilson do we believe?
Trish Cocksedge
Huntingdon Street
