Sewage treatment is going nowhere

SUPPORTERS of full treatment of the island's sewage were dealt a heavy blow yesterday after the States rejected plans to move forward on a plant. Two alternative approaches to get the ball rolling a decade after the States first committed to introducing it were rejected, with costs clearly playing on members' minds.

And it now looks as if visitors will be targeted by environmentalists campaigning against the current method of pumping raw sewage out to sea through the Belle Greve outfall.

Public Services wanted to carry out a marine impact survey, at a cost of £600,000 over five years, to find out whether pollution on local beaches came from sewage disposal or the land.

That was rejected by 32 votes to 12 and the set of decisions left minister Bill Bell virtually speechless.

'Before I can make any considered comments, I want to talk to my colleagues and officers so we can correctly assess the effects of today's vote,' he said after the debate.

The Environment Department placed an amendment to the report which would have moved things forward more quickly. It wanted to spend £1.5m. on a full environmental impact assessment, which would have included the marine survey and identified a site for a plant.

That was rejected by 25 votes to 20.

'I think it's very disappointing for the public,' said minister David De Lisle.

'It certainly mars our reputation internationally in terms of environmental clean-up and from the business point of view. It's a downer for tourism, which is getting a bad reputation in terms of beaches, and health issues. Guernsey has lost today and I'm hoping there will be a change of opinion very quickly in the new government.'

He added that the close vote on the amendment showed a lot of departments were concerned and wanted progress.

Environmental campaigners Surfers Against Sewage dressed as zombies to greet States members as they entered the House yesterday morning.

After cleaning themselves up, they listened to the debate from the public gallery. Campaigns director Richard Hardy said that if the De Lisle amendment had gone through, it would have been significant progress.

'We're extremely disappointed. Once again, the government has failed to deliver on this political issue that's been top of the agenda for four years now,' he said.

SAS would now re-examine its campaign for full treatment, he added.

'We'll shift focus away from the day-to-day politics - we can't see a decision being made - and probably focus outside the island and will be looking to fully inform visitors of what Guernsey does with its sewage.'