Why Is the Damn Beach Closed Again? Saanich Knows the Water Problems Are Bigger Than Bacteria — So Why Are We Still Waiting?

Why Is the Damn Beach Closed Again?

 Saanich Knows the Water Problems Are Bigger Than Bacteria  

So Why Are We Still Waiting?

You pack the towels.

You take the children or grandchildren down to the water.

Then you see the sign:

Swimming advisory. Stay out of the water.

Technically, the beach may still be open. But for a parent, swimmer, paddler or dog owner, the message is simple:

Don’t go in.

The first question most people ask is:

When will the beach reopen?

But there is a more important question:

Why is the beach contaminated again?

The sign tells us that bacteria have reached a level of public-health concern.

It does not tell us where the contamination came from.

It does not tell us how long it has been entering the water.

And it does not tell us what is being done to stop it from happening again.

The beach is where the problem becomes visible

A beach advisory is usually the last warning in a much longer chain.

Contaminated water can reach a beach through creeks, storm drains, leaking or improperly connected pipes, groundwater, septic systems, road runoff, wildlife or a combination of sources.

Every location is different. A high bacterial result does not automatically prove that sewage is responsible.

That is why investigation and source tracing matter.

Island Health tests freshwater beaches for E. coli and marine beaches for enterococci. These are indicators that fecal contamination may be present. Results can change quickly, and laboratory information may already be a day or two old by the time it is available. Heavy rain, runoff, sewage, wildlife and human activity can all affect the result.

But the beach test asks only one part of the water-quality question.

It does not routinely tell swimmers whether the water or nearby sediment contains copper, zinc, mercury, petroleum compounds, PAHs, PCBs, PFAS, pesticides, tire chemicals or endocrine-disrupting compounds.

A good bacteria result is welcome.

It is not the same as a complete environmental bill of health.

We know that underground problems can reach the water

Saanich already has a clear example.

At stormwater discharge SW0671 near Austin Avenue, E. coli reached 88,000 CFU per 100 millilitres in April 2025.

A cross-connection was subsequently identified and repaired.

Later samples dropped to 240, and then to 75.

That case is important because it proves two things.

First, an underground connection can directly affect the water flowing from a municipal drainage system.

Second, when the source is found and repaired, water quality can improve dramatically.

That is source control.

Find the source.

Stop it before it reaches the creek, shoreline or beach.

But other serious sources remain unresolved

At Hobbs Creek in Cadboro Bay, the discharge was rated a High public-health concern in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

Monitoring found elevated E. coli during dry weather and recorded sewer odour on more than one occasion. A duck pond and wildlife may also contribute, so the evidence does not prove that all the contamination is sewage.

But after three successive years at a High rating, residents should not have to diagnose the source themselves.

They should be able to ask:

What has been investigated?

What has been found?

What work has been funded?

When will the source be identified?

At Galey Brook near Cordova Bay Road, E. coli reached 12,000 CFU per 100 millilitres in January 2025 with no prior rain. Other elevated results were also recorded during dry conditions, and the discharge was raised to a High public-health-concern rating.

Dry-weather contamination matters because ordinary rain-driven runoff cannot fully explain flowing contamination when there has been no rain.

The source could involve municipal infrastructure, a private connection, groundwater, septic influence, animals or another intermittent discharge.

The public record does not yet settle that question.

But it does establish that the question needs to be answered.

This is bigger than bacteria at a swimming beach

Douglas Creek lies entirely within Saanich.

Monitoring reported guideline exceedances involving E. coli, copper, iron, zinc, phosphorus, suspended solids, temperature and turbidity.

The tire-derived contaminant 6PPD-quinone exceeded the applicable guideline in three of eight samples.

Biological monitoring also found fewer pollution-sensitive organisms and more pollution-tolerant organisms.

That is not simply a swimming problem.

It is evidence of continuing pressure on the creek ecosystem and on the water flowing downstream into the wider Salish Sea.

When the pollution carried by stormwater reaches the shoreline, it does not vanish.

Some contaminants settle into sediment.

Some enter aquatic organisms.

Some move through food webs.

Some remain long after a bacterial advisory has been lifted.

Saanich’s water does not stop at the municipal boundary

Cecelia Creek makes that point clearly.

The visible creek and its outlet are in Victoria, but the watershed covers approximately 900 hectares, is estimated to be about 90% impervious, and roughly two-thirds of it lies in Saanich.

The natural creek was largely replaced by the 641C and 641D storm-drain systems.

In plain language:

The pipe comes out in Victoria, but much of the water entering it comes from Saanich.

Municipal boundaries do not change where water flows.

The original Cecelia Creek investigation identified 119 businesses in the drainage area and assessed 101 of them. Automotive-related businesses represented approximately 58% of the total. The work documented potential pathways for petroleum residues, solvents, wash water and other industrial contaminants to enter storm drains.

Cecelia Creek then discharges into Selkirk Waters and the Gorge Waterway—an area with a long history of metals and PAH contamination in storm-drain sediment.

Someone swimming or paddling at Banfield Park does not experience separate “Saanich water,” “Victoria water” and “CRD water.”

They experience one connected waterway.

This is not an argument that Saanich does nothing

That would not be accurate.

Saanich has an Asset Management Strategy.

It inspects pipes with cameras.

It rehabilitates and replaces infrastructure.

It participates in regional stormwater monitoring.

It has acknowledged that aging assets create financial and operational risks.

In March 2026, Council received the municipality’s latest State of Assets report.

The cost of the work is also real.

On Neil Street, approximately 180 metres of sanitary and storm pipe affected by breaks, offset joints, roots, sags and other defects is budgeted for replacement at $823,000.

A sanitary and storm rehabilitation project at Wordsworth Street and McRae Avenue is budgeted at approximately $953,000.

Saanich’s 2026 program also identifies approximately $1.714 million for ten storm-main projects, along with approximately $1.33 million for work that includes storm-system inspection, waterways restoration, modelling, design and emerging priorities.

Those projects do not prove that a particular pipe caused a particular beach advisory.

They do show residents how expensive underground infrastructure is—and how quickly the bill grows when work is postponed.

Saanich has also acknowledged that its 2026 financial plan delays some future investments to reduce immediate financial pressure.

That is the political reality.

Spend more now and taxpayers feel it immediately.

Delay the work and the pipe remains underground.

The next Council inherits it.

Eventually, residents inherit a larger bill.

The engineers know the pipes. Council controls the priorities.

Professional engineers should decide how pipes are inspected, repaired and replaced.

Environmental staff should explain what the monitoring shows.

Finance staff should explain what different funding levels will accomplish.

But Mayor and Council control the budgets, priorities and pace of the work.

That is why residents should ask Council a simple question

Why does contaminated water keep reaching our beaches, and what is Saanich doing to stop it at the source?

The sign is not the problem. It is the warning.

When the swimming advisory goes up, government begins testing to determine when the immediate bacterial risk has declined.

That is necessary.

But removing the sign does not explain why the contamination arrived.

It does not repair a cross-connection.

It does not trace an unresolved dry-weather discharge.

It does not remove tire chemicals from road runoff.

It does not clean contaminated sediment.

And it does not answer whether enough money is being spent to prevent the same problem from returning.

So the next time you see a swimming advisory, do not ask only:

When can we go back in the water?

Ask the larger question:

Why did the contamination reach the beach again—and what is being done at the source to stop it?

Saanich already has monitoring results.

It already has infrastructure reports.

It already knows that repairs are expensive.

Now Mayor and Council need to tell residents what the long-term plan is, what is being postponed and how many more summers the public should expect to see the same warning signs.

The water is already telling us that something is wrong.

The question is whether we will deal with it uphill—or keep waiting until it reaches the beach.

— Veins of Life Watershed Society