Re-zoning: Myths versus Facts

1. MYTH: Environmental Assessment is unnecessary because a government body stated that there has not been a significant environmental impact.

FACT: Government bodies which have allowed contaminated soil to be dumped in the Shawnigan watershed have also been derelict in their evaluation and subsequent support of the rezoning. Studies are required to determine the safety of the current and any proposed future industrial activities because toxic impacts can be cumulative over time. Without scientifically factual data there is no security. 

2. MYTH: Environmental Assessment is too expensive; the CVRD does not have the budget to do an assessment.

FACT: Government decides the level of assessment and picks the firm to perform the investigation, and then the proponent pays for the costs of an independent assessment (standard protocol). Why would CVRD Directors or the applicant itself object to an independent evaluation? Why not take some time and ensure that industry is conforming to the highest standards and protecting this unique estuary?

3. MYTH: A “working Bay” includes industrialization in Cowichan Estuary such as metal fabricating. Rezoning is simply recognizing what has been happening over the past 20 years.

FACT: Rewarding past transgressions against the CVRD’s land use plans will encourage others to do the same. Metal fabricating which has been on-going for years on the Terminal, illegally, in non-compliance, and un-challenged is not compatible with the ecological sensitivity of the estuary. The OCP of Area D has flagged the Terminal and surrounding area as ecologically most sensitive part of the estuary.

4. MYTH: Marine Industrial Zone is consistent with the Estuary Order-In-Council and the Cowichan Estuary Management Plan and this application to rezone the Westcan Terminal to heavy metal industrial manufacturing provides balance between jobs and environment.

FACT:  The ultimate goal of the well balanced OIC and the Management Plan was and is phasing out environmentally in-compatible industry in the estuary  in support of conservation management and tourism. The expansion of metal fabricating is not consistent with the ultimate goal of the OIC and the Management Plan.FACT:   While the proponent talks of 50 to 80 jobs, the real number is closer to 15 full time jobs on the Terminal which could be easily relocated to a designated industrial site as purchased by Pacific Industrial Marine in 2017 in Chemainus. Meanwhile most of PIM's operations have been trans-located to the new properly designated site already. The whole issue boils down to the unfounded contention that retaining jobs on the Terminal is more important than protecting the estuary. Industrial land is available in the Cowichan Valley, but the estuary is irreplaceable.

5. MYTH: Pacific Industrial Marine should be rewarded with the rezoning because it has proved it is a steward of the Bay by removing some derelict and sunken boats and built a bridge breaching the Causeway.

FACT: Removing the odd derelict vessel hardly supports the conclusion that the applicant should be rewarded. In fact, the Westcan Terminal looks like a junkyard. PIM's operations do not comply with  federal and provincial environmental law .  "Clean-up" by PIM is simply not that significant compared to the volunteer environmental protection and management activities conducted by Cowichan Bay residents over the past 45 years.FACT: Breaching the Causeway and constructing a bridge was initiated, planned and paid for by CERCA raising $ 220 000 to complete this project. CERCA awarded the construction contract to Pacific Industrial Marine as a sign of good will to the Lessee of the Crown Leases in question.

6. MYTH: Shellfish safety as human food is only based on E. coli and thus once the human sewage problem is solved in Cowichan Estuary, we will be able to harvest and market shellfish.

FACT: There are serious environmental impacts from steel fabrication. Deposition of hazardous materials and waste streams, potential over-spray and pollution from:

• Pigments such as cadmium, chromium and lead.
• Dust from welding and torch cutting, metal oxides, slags and silicates.
• Caustic pickling, electroplating, painting, varnishing, lacquering, enameling, bonderizing, tinning and galvanizing.

7. MYTH: The staff of the CVRD Planning Department carefully investigated this issue and compiled sufficient data to advise the Directors of the CVRD to allow this issue to proceed to a public hearing.

FACT: The Environmental Services Division of the CVRD has been muzzled regarding this issue under the pretext that the re-zoning is a pure "land-use issue".FACT: The staff of the CVRD Planning Department depended entirely on the proponent's data, own information and conclusions, and scientifically un-founded recommendations of incompetent government agencies. The CVRD rejects every argument and all facts against re-zoning without even answering critical questions. Also an evaluation of the costs and benefits for nature and taxpayers of having an improperly located industry in the estuary was never made.

8. MYTH: Re-zoning the six Crown Leases in the estuary is a pure land-use issue.

FACT: Well over half of the six Crown Leases subject to re-zoning constitutes ecologically highly sensitive inter-tidal areas, including part of the only eelgrass field left in the estuary.  Any environmental hazards resulting from industry on the Terminal will affect the entire estuary.

9. MYTH:          Cowichan Bay residents are represented by Area D Director and constituents want the re-zoning.

FACT: Cowichan Bay residents to the North of Cowichan Bay and First Nation people living in Cowichan Bay are not represented on the EASC Board.FACT: Results of a perception/opinion poll implemented by CERCA in cooperation with UVIC showed that well over 80% of Cowichan Bay and Area D residents oppose industry in the estuary. 92% of households polled want industry in the estuary to be phased out in favour of conservation and tourism as the economic driver of the Bay.FACT: Regarding re-zoning in support of industry in the estuary: the Area D Director represents a vocal minority of industry supporters only.

10. MYTH: The future of the causeway and access road as an industrial site is secure. There is no concern for flooding of industrial infrastructure or toxic waste entering the Estuary.

FACT:  Climate change is leading to rising sea levels and stronger storm surges. This has resulted in new provincial floodplain legislation The buildings on the terminal constructed by the proponent without development and/or building permits are not in compliance with provincial and/or CVRD regulations.FACT: The hazard analysis and risk assessment conducted by the CVRD's Environmental Services Division which fully recognizes the imminent flooding potential of the Westcan Terminal has been belittled by the CVRD Planning Department.Will industry request public money to assist them when their business floods?FACT:  Toxic waste management and remediation often becomes the responsibility of government funded by taxpayers. What about any toxic sediments or waste that may require removal or disposal in the future?  How will the CVRD handle this once they have rezoned and given their blessing for the industry to continue and expand?Dr. Goetz Schuerholz, Chair CERCA