Would You Swim in This?
A person washing a car on a paved driveway may see nothing more than soap, water and a cleaner vehicle.
The receiving environment gets something very different.
Water running from a vehicle can carry road sediment, tire residue, brake dust, copper, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons, oil, grease, detergents, surfactants, waxes and other cleaning chemicals. When the washing takes place on asphalt or concrete, the water receives almost no natural filtration. It moves down the driveway, across the gutter, into a catch basin and through a municipal storm sewer.
In much of Greater Victoria, that storm sewer does not lead to a sewage-treatment plant. It leads to a creek, beach, harbour, intertidal area or the Salish Sea.
The complete pathway is:
vehicle → impervious driveway → street gutter → catch basin → municipal storm sewer → outfall → freshwater or marine habitat.
The central question is simple:
Would you knowingly swim, wade, harvest shellfish or allow children to play where untreated vehicle-washing wastewater is being discharged?
The answer should not depend on whether the person holding the hose is a homeowner or a commercial operator. The receiving water cannot distinguish between the two.
1. What is being washed from the vehicle?
A vehicle is a moving collection surface.
During ordinary use it accumulates:
brake and tire-wear particles;
copper, zinc and other metals;
exhaust and combustion residues;
road sediment;
asphalt and pavement particles;
oil, grease and fuel residues;
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs;
tire-derived chemicals;
road salt and de-icing residue;
pesticides and other material deposited on roads;
and whatever has leaked, spilled or settled onto the roadway.
Detergents and surfactants are designed to detach this material from the vehicle. The washing process suspends the contaminants in water and moves them onto the driveway.
The Capital Regional District identifies heavy metals, oil, grease, petroleum products and abnormal acidity or alkalinity as possible constituents of vehicle-washing wastewater. Its direction to commercial vehicle-washing operations is to collect and treat that wastewater and prevent it from entering roads, parking lots, ditches and storm drains.
Peer-reviewed work examining vehicle-wash runoff has similarly identified suspended sediment, surfactants and other contaminants requiring treatment. In experimental rain-garden systems, 84% to 95% of suspended solids and 89% to 96% of surfactants were removed. Even after those substantial reductions, the remaining surfactant concentrations were not consistently brought below published aquatic-toxicity values.
That result is important. If carefully designed soil and vegetation systems do not always reduce surfactants below toxicity benchmarks, allowing the same wastewater to flow directly over pavement into an untreated storm drain is difficult to defend as sound source control.
“Biodegradable” does not mean immediately harmless. Biodegradation requires suitable organisms, temperature, oxygen and time. A storm sewer is designed to move water quickly, not to treat it.
2. Why washing on asphalt or concrete matters
Impervious surfaces turn a pollution source into a direct delivery system.
Research comparing asphalt, permeable-paver and crushed-stone driveways found that average infiltration was:
zero for asphalt;
11.2 centimetres per hour for permeable pavers; and
9.0 centimetres per hour for crushed stone.
The order of runoff generation was asphalt first, followed by pavers and then crushed stone. Pollutant export was driven primarily by the amount of runoff leaving each surface.
On asphalt or concrete, there is usually no meaningful:
infiltration;
sediment filtration;
adsorption by soil;
microbial degradation;
oil separation;
detention;
or biological uptake.
The hose supplies the transport water. The driveway supplies the slope. The gutter supplies the channel. The catch basin and municipal pipe complete the route to the receiving environment.
The CRD explains that rain and runoff wash contaminants from roads, roofs and parking areas into catch basins, pipes and ditches that discharge to creeks and marine shorelines. It monitors more than 500 storm drains, creeks, harbours and nearshore locations because those systems are recognized pollution pathways.
Vehicle washing creates the same basic transport process without waiting for rain.
3. Would you swim beside the outfall?
It would be inaccurate to claim that every beach receiving stormwater is chemically unsafe at all times. Risk depends on:
what was discharged;
how much was discharged;
its concentration;
the size and location of the outfall;
tidal exchange and freshwater flow;
the time since discharge;
water chemistry;
sediment accumulation;
and how people use the site.
It would be equally inaccurate to assume that a beach is chemically safe because the water looks clear or because one fecal-bacteria sample is below a recreational-water threshold.
Health Canada’s recreational-water guidance calls for site-specific evaluation of chemical hazards. It directs authorities to examine storm drains, outfalls, overland runoff and other possible contaminant sources through an Environmental Health and Safety Survey. Where a credible chemical source exists, water and sediment sampling may be required. Relevant exposure routes include accidental swallowing, skin contact and inhalation.
Contact with the water
A swimmer, wader or child playing near an active outfall may be exposed through:
accidental ingestion;
eye, nose and mouth contact;
cuts, abrasions or irritated skin;
inhalation of spray;
and hand-to-mouth contact.
Detergents and abnormal pH can irritate the skin and eyes. Stormwater may also carry fecal contamination from animals, leaking sanitary systems, cross-connections and other urban sources. Health Canada identifies stormwater and urban runoff as potential pathways for both microbial and chemical hazards.
Children playing in wet sediment
Children do not use a beach like adult swimmers. They sit in shallow water, dig holes, handle mud, build sand structures and frequently place wet hands or objects near their mouths.
Many metals, petroleum compounds and hydrophobic organic contaminants attach to fine particles. Those particles can settle near the outfall even after the visible plume has dispersed.
The water may appear clean at high tide while contamination remains in the intertidal sediment.
Bacteria testing does not measure chemical pollution
Routine beach monitoring commonly focuses on fecal-indicator organisms. Those tests do not measure:
copper;
zinc;
lead;
oil and grease;
surfactants;
PAHs;
6PPD-quinone;
tire particles;
or whole-effluent aquatic toxicity.
A beach can therefore meet a bacterial guideline without having been evaluated for these chemical hazards.
The responsible answer to “Would you swim in this?” is therefore:
Not beside an active stormwater outfall carrying vehicle-washing wastewater, and not without knowing what is in the water and sediment.
That is a precaution based on an identified source and an untested discharge—not a declaration that every receiving beach is continuously unsafe.
4. What does this pollution do to fish?
Copper and sensory damage
Copper is associated with brake wear and traffic-related runoff.
Juvenile coho salmon use smell to recognize predators, identify habitat and respond to environmental cues. Controlled research found that short-term exposure to dissolved copper at concentrations as low as 2 micrograms per litre impaired sensory function and reduced normal predator-avoidance behaviour.
A fish does not have to die immediately for pollution to damage a population.
A salmon that cannot properly detect predators, orient itself, locate refuge or interpret chemical signals may have a lower chance of survival.
Untreated traffic runoff can be lethal
Researchers exposed adult coho salmon to untreated runoff collected from a heavily travelled roadway during nine separate storm events. The untreated runoff was universally lethal to exposed coho. When the runoff was first passed through experimental soil-infiltration columns, the mortality was prevented.
Residential vehicle-wash runoff should not be represented as identical in concentration to undiluted highway runoff. The importance of the study is the demonstrated principle:
residues produced by vehicles accumulate on impervious surfaces;
flowing water mobilizes them;
the untreated mixture can be acutely toxic;
and infiltration and treatment can prevent the harm.
A municipal bylaw that assumes residential origin makes vehicle-wash wastewater acceptable ignores that evidence.
Tire-derived 6PPD-quinone
Tires commonly contain 6PPD, which protects rubber from degradation. When 6PPD reacts with ozone, it forms 6PPD-quinone.
Juvenile coho exposed to 6PPD-quinone had a reported 24-hour median lethal concentration of approximately 41 nanograms per litre. Juvenile Chinook were much less acutely sensitive in that experiment, although the researchers cautioned that sublethal and population-relevant Chinook effects require further investigation.
Recent research has detected rapidly changing 6PPD-quinone concentrations in urban streams on central Vancouver Island, demonstrating that this is not merely a distant or theoretical contaminant.
Household car washing has not been established as the dominant source of 6PPD-quinone. Road-deposited tire wear mobilized by rainfall is the principal pathway studied to date.
However, washing tires, wheels, wheel wells and accumulated roadway grime directly into a catch basin is a plausible additional pathway. Its importance in Greater Victoria should be measured rather than presumed harmless.
5. The effects continue into marine waters
Stormwater does not stop being pollution when it reaches salt water.
Urban creeks and storm drains discharge into:
estuaries;
shallow bays;
eelgrass habitat;
mudflats;
beaches;
intertidal feeding areas;
shellfish habitat;
forage-fish habitat;
and municipal harbours.
Pacific herring
Pacific herring are a central marine forage fish.
Researchers exposed developing herring embryos to traffic-related urban stormwater diluted with clean seawater. At stormwater concentrations between 12% and 50%, PAHs were taken up by the embryos and produced cardiac injury. The stormwater injury closely resembled the established developmental toxicity of crude oil.
Herring eggs develop on shallow nearshore vegetation and other submerged surfaces. This places embryos close to shoreline runoff, intertidal contamination and stormwater outfalls.
Developmental cardiac injury can affect:
circulation;
growth;
successful hatching;
swimming ability;
and later survival.
Contaminated sediment
Fine road and vehicle particles can carry metals and organic contaminants through the storm system. Once discharged, some particles remain suspended while others settle near the outfall.
Repeated small discharges can therefore create a long-term sediment burden even when each individual car-washing event appears minor.
Bottom-dwelling organisms may be exposed through:
direct contact;
ingestion of sediment;
filter feeding;
and contaminated food.
Those organisms are eaten by juvenile salmon, forage fish, shorebirds, diving ducks and other wildlife.
The food-web pathway
The ecological pathway is straightforward:
stormwater contamination → water and sediment → invertebrates and forage fish → salmon → marine mammals, birds and people.
Chinook salmon are the principal prey of Southern Resident killer whales. Protecting killer whales cannot be separated from protecting nearshore habitat, forage fish, juvenile salmon and the invertebrate communities supporting the food web.
6. The seven municipal bylaw positions
6.1 District of Highlands
The public materials reviewed did not reveal a dedicated modern stormwater-discharge bylaw equivalent to the detailed drainage bylaws used in Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt or View Royal.
Highlands instead relies in part on Roads and Traffic Bylaw No. 300.
Section 6.01 prohibits causing a nuisance on, fouling or damaging a road right-of-way or public place. Section 6.12(b) prohibits the owner or occupier of property adjoining a road from permitting water to flow from the property onto or over the road.
Practical result
Highlands does not expressly authorize residential vehicle-washing wastewater to enter a storm drain or watercourse.
A vehicle may apparently be washed on private property only where:
the activity does not foul a public road;
runoff remains on the property;
and the water does not flow onto or over the road.
Washing directly on a public road is not expressly authorized and could conflict with the road-fouling provision.
The online consolidation reviewed was not represented as a certified current bylaw. A certified copy and all amendments should be obtained before relying on it in a formal complaint.
Source-control concern
The principal problem in Highlands is not an express vehicle-washing exemption. It is the apparent absence of a clear, publicly accessible and comprehensive stormwater source-control bylaw addressing non-stormwater discharges.
6.2 Town of View Royal
View Royal has Storm Sewer Bylaw No. 902.
Section 5(1) generally prohibits domestic waste, business waste, trucked liquid waste and prohibited waste from entering the municipal drainage system or a watercourse.
Section 5(2)(b) then expressly allows water resulting from:
garden and lawn maintenance;
non-commercial car washing;
building washing;
and driveway washing
to enter the municipal drainage system or a watercourse.
The bylaw also states that compliance with it does not guarantee that a discharge will not pollute or contravene federal or provincial law. In other words, the Town acknowledges that its local permission cannot override superior environmental legislation.
Conflict with the Streets Bylaw
View Royal’s Streets Bylaw No. 980, section 12.5, prohibits an owner or occupier from allowing water to flow from adjoining property onto, over or under public land. Public land includes the street, boulevard, shoulder, ditch and sidewalk.
Practical result
View Royal’s two bylaws point in different directions:
the storm-sewer bylaw allows residential car-wash water into the drainage system or a watercourse;
the streets bylaw prevents the ordinary route by which driveway water would cross public land to reach the street catch basin.
Directly washing a vehicle on the street is not expressly authorized.
The result is poor regulatory drafting and confusing public direction. Environmentally, the more serious issue is that View Royal has expressly classified residential car-wash water as acceptable for a municipal drainage system or even a watercourse.
6.3 City of Langford
Langford has Pollution and Obstruction of Watercourses Bylaw No. 550.
The bylaw requires systems receiving runoff from parking and vehicle-related areas to be maintained so that silt, petroleum products and substances harmful to fish or aquatic life are not discharged into streams, creeks, watercourses, ditches or drains.
It also prohibits a person from discharging silt or another substance harmful to fish or to aquatic plants and animals on which fish depend into those receiving features.
Langford’s Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 2233 further prohibits hazardous or contaminating liquids—including vehicle fluids, oil, paint, solvents, sewage and greywater—from flowing, spilling or being deposited on a street. Property owners must also prevent material from washing from driveways onto the street.
Practical result
Langford does not provide the broad residential car-washing exemption found in Saanich, Esquimalt, View Royal and Victoria.
Residential car washing is defensible only where the runoff is:
contained on the property;
infiltrated without causing pollution;
and prevented from carrying harmful substances to a road, ditch, drain, watercourse or storm sewer.
Direct street washing is not authorized.
Source-control concern
Langford’s bylaw is stronger in principle because it does not automatically exempt residential car-washing wastewater. Its weakness is that enforcement may depend on showing that the discharged material was harmful to fish or aquatic life.
6.4 District of Saanich
Saanich has Watercourse and Drainage Regulation Bylaw No. 7501.
Section 7(a) generally prohibits domestic waste, trucked liquid waste and prohibited waste from entering a storm sewer or watercourse.
Section 7(b)(ii) then expressly permits water from residential:
garden and lawn maintenance;
non-commercial car washing;
building washing;
and driveway washing
to enter a storm sewer or watercourse.
Section 8 requires oil and grease interceptors for certain paved or impervious motor-vehicle parking areas. However, the requirement does not apply in the same way to a single-family dwelling or duplex. Section 11 confirms that compliance with the municipal bylaw does not remove obligations under federal, provincial or other local enactments.
Practical result
Saanich expressly permits residential car-wash water to enter:
the storm sewer; or
a watercourse.
The permission is not limited to clean water. It does not distinguish among:
plain water and detergent;
body washing and wheel cleaning;
a clean vehicle and one covered in road grime;
a well-maintained vehicle and one leaking fluids;
biodegradable soap and more aggressive cleaning products.
Directly washing a vehicle on the street is not expressly authorized, but the resulting discharge is exempted under the drainage bylaw.
Source-control concern
Saanich requires treatment controls for some larger paved vehicle areas while broadly exempting residential car washing. Yet the pollutants do not become harmless because they originated from a single-family driveway.
6.5 Township of Esquimalt
Esquimalt has Watercourse and Drainage Regulation Bylaw No. 2971.
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 generally prohibit domestic waste, trucked liquid waste, prohibited waste and polluting substances from entering a storm sewer or watercourse except where authorized.
Section 5.3 expressly permits water from residential:
garden and lawn maintenance;
non-commercial car washing;
building washing;
and driveway washing
to enter a storm sewer or watercourse.
The municipality’s own warning
Esquimalt’s public watershed information explains that water from rainfall, lawn watering and car washing can flow to the ocean while carrying oil, antifreeze, paint, soap, fertilizers and pesticides into storm drains. It warns that these materials can harm plants and animals and contribute to unhealthy swimming and shoreline conditions.
Practical result
Esquimalt’s public education and enforceable bylaw are pulling in opposite directions.
The Township warns that car-washing runoff can carry pollution to the ocean, but its bylaw expressly permits residential car-washing water into the storm sewer or watercourse.
Direct street washing is not expressly authorized, but driveway washing and its discharge pathway are expressly exempted.
Source-control concern
Esquimalt’s bylaw also includes polluter-pays provisions. Those provisions are weakened where the discharge has already been classified as permitted under section 5.3.
6.6 City of Victoria
Victoria has Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Utilities Bylaw No. 14-071.
Section 23(1) generally prohibits domestic waste, trucked liquid waste, sanitary waste, business waste and prohibited waste from entering the municipal stormwater system or a watercourse.
Section 23(2)(b) expressly permits wastewater resulting from residential:
non-commercial car washing;
building washing;
driveway washing;
and garden or lawn maintenance
to enter the municipal stormwater system or a watercourse.
Victoria’s definitions are especially important.
The bylaw defines the municipal stormwater system to include:
City-owned or City-operated catch basins;
storm drains;
mains;
connections;
culverts;
and outfalls.
It defines wastewater as water and water-carried wastes. Its waterway definition includes the Inner Harbour, Gorge Waterway and marine waters within the City.
The City’s public message
Victoria’s public stormwater guidance says contaminants are washed from roads and other hard surfaces into local waterways and the ocean. It also states that only clean water is allowed in storm drains and that source control is extremely important.
Practical result
Victoria’s public guidance says only clean water should enter the system.
Its enforceable bylaw expressly allows residential vehicle-washing wastewater to enter that same system.
That is not a minor wording difference. The bylaw:
recognizes the material as wastewater;
recognizes the catch basins and outfalls as City-owned or operated works;
recognizes the receiving waterways;
and nevertheless creates the residential exemption.
Direct street washing is not expressly authorized, but wastewater from driveway car washing is expressly permitted into the stormwater system or a watercourse.
6.7 District of Oak Bay
Oak Bay’s governing sewer legislation is Public Sewer Bylaw No. 3891, 1996, as amended.
Official council records confirm that the bylaw regulates public sewer infrastructure, stormwater connections and service requirements. It has been repeatedly amended, including amendments associated with Uplands storm-sewer connections and a 2024 amendment dealing with service fees.
However, a complete certified consolidated copy containing all operative discharge provisions was not located in the public materials reviewed.
For that reason, it would be improper to state that Oak Bay expressly permits or prohibits residential car-wash wastewater without first obtaining:
the certified base bylaw;
every amendment;
schedules;
sewer-use restrictions;
and any applicable streets or nuisance provisions.
What is confirmed
Oak Bay owns and is constructing substantial stormwater infrastructure.
The Uplands Sewer Separation project includes:
approximately 3.5 kilometres of new gravity stormwater mains;
manholes and catch basins;
stormwater connections to approximately 120 houses;
and two new ocean outfalls.
The purpose is to divert stormwater from houses and road catch basins into the new storm-drain system and discharge it separately from sanitary sewage.
Oak Bay also identifies storm-sewer and outfall work elsewhere, including infrastructure delivering drainage to the marine shoreline.
Provisional practical result
No express residential car-washing exemption has yet been verified for Oak Bay.
Therefore:
residential vehicle-wash water should not be presumed lawful merely because a storm connection exists;
a new stormwater system and ocean outfall do not amount to treatment;
and Oak Bay must produce its certified discharge provisions before its exact bylaw position can be finally classified.
Source-control concern
Oak Bay is investing heavily in separating sewage from stormwater. That is necessary to prevent sanitary overflows, but separation creates a separate environmental obligation: pollutants deliberately or accidentally introduced into the new storm system can be delivered more directly to the ocean.
Removing sewage does not make vehicle-washing wastewater clean.
7. The municipal inconsistency
The seven municipalities do not regulate the same activity consistently.
Highlands, Langford and provisionally Oak Bay do not appear to contain the broad express residential exemption found elsewhere.
View Royal, Saanich, Esquimalt and Victoria expressly permit water or wastewater from non-commercial vehicle washing to enter storm sewers or watercourses.
Yet regional and municipal public guidance says that:
storm drains commonly discharge untreated to freshwater and marine waters;
vehicle-washing wastewater may contain metals, petroleum products, oil and grease;
and wash water should be kept out of storm drains.
The scientific risk does not change at a municipal boundary.
A copper-bearing discharge cannot be environmentally acceptable on one side of a street and unacceptable on the other merely because two councils adopted different wording.
8. Residential and commercial wastewater are being treated differently
Commercial vehicle-washing operations are generally expected to:
contain their wastewater;
use sediment and oil controls;
meet sewer-use requirements;
and discharge to the sanitary sewer or an approved treatment system.
The CRD specifically instructs commercial operators to prevent wash and rinse water from entering storm drains, ditches, parking lots and roadways.
Residential vehicle-wash water may contain many of the same contaminant classes:
surfactants;
suspended solids;
copper;
zinc;
petroleum residue;
oil and grease;
tire particles;
and road grime.
The volume from one household may be smaller, but the receiving system collects discharges from an entire catchment.
Pollution law and aquatic toxicology are concerned with the substance, quantity, concentration, exposure and receiving environment—not whether the person causing the discharge was paid to wash the vehicle.
9. Can a municipal bylaw legalize the discharge?
No municipal bylaw can override federal or provincial environmental legislation.
Under section 6 of the Community Charter, a municipality is a corporation. Section 10 provides that a municipal bylaw provision has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with a provincial enactment. Municipal corporate status also means the municipality may own, operate and control infrastructure in its own legal capacity.
However, the existence of a permissive bylaw does not automatically prove that a municipality has committed an environmental offence.
A completed enforcement case still requires evidence of:
an actual deposit;
the substance or mixture deposited;
the route into the receiving environment;
the applicable statutory harm or pollution threshold;
municipal ownership or control;
and the absence of valid authorization.
The bylaws are nevertheless important evidence because they show that some municipalities have deliberately created and maintained a local permission for the discharge.
10. Fisheries Act
Subsection 36(3) of the federal Fisheries Act prohibits any person from depositing or permitting the deposit of a deleterious substance:
in water frequented by fish; or
in a place under conditions where the substance may enter water frequented by fish.
The prohibition applies subject to qualifying federal regulatory authorizations. A municipal bylaw exemption is not, on its own, an authorization under subsection 36(4).
This means the deposit does not have to be made directly at the beach or creek.
Putting contaminated wastewater into a catch basin may fall within subsection 36(3) where the catch basin connects through a pipe to fish-bearing water.
To establish a particular offence, investigators would still need to show that the vehicle-washing wastewater was a deleterious substance under the Act and that it entered, or could enter, fish-bearing water.
The municipal bylaw cannot pre-decide that question in favour of the municipality.
11. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
Section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 prohibits depositing—or permitting the deposit of—a substance harmful to migratory birds:
in waters or areas frequented by migratory birds; or
in a place from which the substance may enter those waters or areas.
The provision also addresses substances that become harmful when combined with other substances. Its exceptions require qualifying federal authorization; a municipal bylaw is not enough.
This may be relevant where outfalls enter:
mudflats;
estuaries;
beaches;
shallow harbours;
intertidal feeding areas;
or other habitat used by migratory shorebirds, diving ducks and waterfowl.
A formal allegation would require evidence that:
migratory birds use the receiving area;
the discharged substance was harmful;
and the municipal drainage pathway carried or permitted that substance to reach the area.
12. B.C. Environmental Management Act
Section 6(4) of British Columbia’s Environmental Management Act prohibits introducing waste into the environment in a manner or quantity that causes pollution, unless an applicable authorization or exception applies.
This is not an automatic zero-discharge provision. The evidence must establish:
that the material was waste;
that it was introduced into the environment;
and that its manner or quantity caused pollution within the statutory meaning.
A municipality may attempt to rely on:
a permit;
an approval;
a regulation;
an operational certificate;
or an approved liquid-waste-management plan.
That authorization must be produced and read carefully. A municipal bylaw does not substitute for provincial authorization, and provincial authorization does not automatically displace the federal Fisheries Act.
For every outfall under investigation, the municipality and Province should be required to identify the exact legal instrument authorizing the discharge.
13. B.C. Water Sustainability Act
Section 46 of the Water Sustainability Act addresses the introduction of contaminants and other matter into streams, stream channels and adjacent areas where the introduction causes or is likely to cause a significant adverse impact on:
water quality;
existing water uses;
the stream or stream channel;
connected aquifers;
or the aquatic ecosystem.
The Act also makes clear that later dilution does not necessarily erase the original contravention where the statutory test was met at the time of introduction.
This provision is particularly relevant to:
roadside ditches connected to streams;
buried creek channels;
freshwater outfalls;
wetlands connected to watercourses;
and salmon-bearing urban streams.
Its application to a specific vehicle-washing discharge requires evidence of the significant adverse impact or likelihood of such impact.
14. Why CEPA is not the lead provision here
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 may become relevant where a specifically regulated toxic substance is identified and released contrary to a CEPA regulation, prohibition or order.
However, CEPA does not impose a universal prohibition on every release of every substance merely because the substance appears on a federal toxic-substances list.
For ordinary vehicle-washing mixtures, the more direct federal provision is subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.
CEPA should be added where sampling identifies a specifically regulated substance and the applicable regulatory elements can be proven.
15. What has been established
The available evidence supports the following findings:
Vehicle-washing water is wastewater capable of carrying suspended solids, surfactants, metals, petroleum contamination, PAHs and tire-related contaminants.
Asphalt and concrete provide little or no infiltration and efficiently move that wastewater toward streets and catch basins.
Municipal stormwater systems commonly carry runoff to creeks, beaches and marine shorelines without conventional sewage treatment.
Copper, PAHs, tire-derived chemicals and untreated traffic runoff have documented acute and sublethal effects on salmon and marine forage fish.
Routine fecal-indicator monitoring does not measure the principal chemical contaminants associated with vehicle washing and traffic residue.
Saanich, Esquimalt, Victoria and View Royal expressly exempt residential non-commercial car-washing water from their general stormwater prohibitions.
Langford does not contain the same broad exemption and instead prohibits harmful discharges to drains, ditches and watercourses.
Highlands does not expressly authorize the discharge and prohibits water from private property flowing onto the road.
Oak Bay’s exact discharge language remains unverified because a complete certified consolidated sewer bylaw was not found in the public materials reviewed.
Municipal permissions do not override federal or provincial environmental law.
16. What has not yet been established
The following should not be overstated:
Every car-washing event does not necessarily create the same contaminant concentration.
Every outfall does not necessarily create the same environmental or public-health risk.
A municipal bylaw exemption, standing alone, does not prove a Fisheries Act or Environmental Management Act offence.
Residential car washing has not yet been demonstrated to be the dominant Greater Victoria source of 6PPD-quinone.
A bacteria result cannot be used to prove or disprove chemical contamination.
Local contaminant loads cannot be calculated responsibly without field sampling.
These are evidence gaps—not evidence that the discharge is harmless.
17. What must now be tested
A proper Greater Victoria investigation should follow actual vehicle-washing wastewater from source to receiving environment.
Samples should be collected from:
the vehicle and driveway runoff;
the street gutter;
the catch basin;
the municipal pipe;
the outfall;
the receiving water;
and nearby intertidal or stream sediment.
The analytical program should include:
total suspended solids;
turbidity;
oil and grease;
chemical oxygen demand;
anionic and non-ionic surfactants;
dissolved and total copper;
zinc and lead;
PAHs;
6PPD and 6PPD-quinone;
tire and road-wear particles;
microplastics;
nutrients;
pH;
fecal indicators;
and whole-effluent toxicity testing.
Sampling should distinguish among:
plain-water rinsing;
soap washing;
wheel cleaning;
undercarriage washing;
engine or degreasing work;
clean and visibly dirty vehicles;
dry-weather and wet-weather receiving conditions;
and outfalls with different flushing characteristics.
Sediment must be included because repeated discharges may leave a contaminant burden after the visible water plume disappears.
18. What every municipality should produce
Each of the seven municipalities should disclose:
A certified copy of every current stormwater, sewer, streets, watercourse and drainage bylaw.
All amendments and schedules.
Its GIS stormwater network showing catch basins, pipes, ditches, outfalls and receiving waters.
Ownership and operational responsibility for each outfall.
Every provincial permit, approval, registration, operational certificate or approved liquid-waste-management-plan provision relied upon.
Any claimed federal wastewater authorization.
Vehicle-washing complaints, inspections and enforcement records.
Outfall water and sediment testing.
Municipal legal opinions or staff reports supporting the residential car-washing exemption.
Records explaining how the exemption is reconciled with public guidance saying that only clean water should enter storm drains.
19. Required bylaw reform
A modern and consistent regional source-control rule should:
remove blanket exemptions for non-commercial car washing;
prohibit vehicle-washing wastewater from entering streets, gutters, catch basins, storm drains, ditches and watercourses;
direct vehicle washing to compliant facilities connected to the sanitary sewer through approved controls;
prohibit home engine washing, undercarriage washing, wheel-cleaner discharge and degreasing unless wastewater is captured;
require containment and proper disposal;
make clear that “biodegradable” soap is not permission to discharge;
authorize inspection, sampling, cleanup orders and cost recovery;
and require public education showing the connection between each neighbourhood and its receiving outfall.
The same minimum rule should apply across municipal boundaries.
Conclusion: Would you swim in this?
Would you knowingly swim beside an outfall carrying untreated water containing soap, brake dust, tire residue, petroleum contamination, metals and road sediment?
Would you allow children to dig in the sediment at the mouth of that pipe without testing it?
Would you discharge the same mixture into a salmon-rearing tank, a herring-spawning enclosure or a shellfish nursery?
If the answer is no, the same wastewater should not be deliberately routed through municipally owned catch basins and pipes into the Gorge Waterway, Victoria Harbour, Esquimalt Harbour, Oak Bay’s beaches, local creeks or the Salish Sea.
No amount of shoreline planting can substitute for source control.
Habitat restoration begins before the pollution enters the pipe.
References
Capital Regional District. Vehicle Washing—Liquid Waste Requirements for Businesses. Identifies metals, oil, grease and petroleum products in vehicle-washing wastewater and directs operators to prevent discharge to storm drains and outdoor drainage areas.
Capital Regional District. Stormwater Monitoring and Catch-Basin Guidance. Describes the movement of urban contaminants through stormwater systems to freshwater and marine receiving environments.
Health Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality. Addresses Environmental Health and Safety Surveys, chemical hazards, outfalls, runoff, exposure pathways and site-specific sampling.
Gilbert, J.K. and Clausen, J.C. “Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity from Asphalt, Paver and Crushed Stone Driveways in Connecticut.” Water Research, 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.12.006.
Bakacs, M.E., Yergeau, S.E. and Obropta, C.C. “Assessment of Car Wash Runoff Treatment Using Bioretention Mesocosms.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2013. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000719.
Sandahl, J.F. et al. “A Sensory System at the Interface Between Urban Stormwater Runoff and Salmon Survival.” Environmental Science & Technology, 2007. DOI: 10.1021/es062287r.
Spromberg, J.A. et al. “Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Western U.S. Urban Watersheds: Bioinfiltration Prevents Lethal Storm Water Impacts.” Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12534.
Lo, B.P. et al. “Acute Toxicity of 6PPD-Quinone to Early Life Stage Juvenile Chinook and Coho Salmon.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/etc.5568.
Harding, L.B. et al. “Urban Stormwater and Crude Oil Injury Pathways Converge on the Developing Heart of a Shore-Spawning Marine Forage Fish.” Aquatic Toxicology, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2020.105654.
District of Highlands. Roads and Traffic Bylaw No. 300, including road-fouling and runoff provisions.
Town of View Royal. Storm Sewer Bylaw No. 902, section 5, and Streets Bylaw No. 980, section 12.5.
City of Langford. Pollution and Obstruction of Watercourses Bylaw No. 550 and Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 2233.
District of Saanich. Watercourse and Drainage Regulation Bylaw No. 7501, sections 7, 8 and 11.
Township of Esquimalt. Watercourse and Drainage Regulation Bylaw No. 2971, section 5, and municipal watershed guidance.
City of Victoria. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Utilities Bylaw No. 14-071, section 23 and definitions, and municipal stormwater guidance.
District of Oak Bay. Public Sewer Bylaw No. 3891, 1996, amendment records and Uplands Sewer Separation project information.
Government of Canada. Fisheries Act, section 36.
Government of Canada. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, section 5.1.
Province of British Columbia. Environmental Management Act, section 6.
Province of British Columbia. Water Sustainability Act, section 46.
Province of British Columbia. Community Charter, municipal corporate status and bylaw inconsistency provisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment