Victoria Stormwater:
We Know the Pipe Numbers.
Fix Them.
CRD’s 2025 report documents sewage indicators, chemical hot spots and long-running problem drains entering Victoria Harbour, the Gorge and Oak Bay. Our children should not inherit another generation of reports and excuses.
The Capital Regional District has released its 2025 Core Area Stormwater Quality Program Report.
It does not uncover a new problem.
It confirms that governments have spent decades measuring many of the same polluted pipes.
The drains are numbered. The catchments are mapped. Sewage indicators have been measured. Industrial and business discharges have been found. Cross-connections between sewage and stormwater systems have been identified.
CRD monitors, investigates and helps trace contamination. But CRD is clear: municipalities own and operate their storm drains and are responsible for remedial work where possible.[1]
In plain English:
CRD can identify the sick pipe. The municipality still has to fix it.
Fourteen years. Four fewer high-rated discharges.
CRD’s main table lists 28 Core Area stormwater discharges rated High for Public Health Concern in 2025.
Sixteen are listed under Victoria—more than half of the Core Area total.
In 2011, Victoria had 20.
Fourteen years later, it still had 16.
CRD also says 18 of the current high-rated discharges have remained High for at least five years.[1]
At Victoria’s simple historical pace—four fewer high-rated discharges in fourteen years—removing the remaining sixteen would take roughly another 56 years.
That is not a CRD forecast. It is basic arithmetic showing how slowly the problem has been reduced.
A child born in Victoria today could be approaching retirement by then.
Pollution should not be an inheritance.
Cecelia Creek: sewage signs even without rain
CRD uses E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination and the possible presence of pathogens.
At the mouth of Cecelia Creek, CRD measured:
38,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres on April 8, 2025
and
17,000 per 100 millilitres on September 8, 2025.
The September sample was taken with no recorded rain.
Upstream sampling has also documented thousands of E. coli per 100 millilitres together with sewer odour and oily sheen during dry weather.[1]
Cecelia Creek remains High for Public Health Concern.
It also crosses the Victoria–Saanich boundary. Pollution does not stop because one municipality ends and another begins.
Follow the drainage system upstream.
Find the damaged pipe, leaking sewer, cross-connection or prohibited discharge.
Then fix it.
Outfall 649: bacteria in the millions
Outfall 649, near the Gorge Road Health Centre, is even more troubling.
CRD measured 6,000,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres on July 30, 2025.
On September 8, the primary sample measured 1,300,000 and a split sample measured 5,400,000. CRD marked the pair outside its precision criterion because the numbers differed—but both results were still in the millions.[1]
A July 2025 sewage spill helped investigators identify a possible connection between Victoria’s sewage system and this private storm drain.
CRD says the pipe has shown elevated bacteria since regular monitoring began in 1992 and has been rated High for Public Health Concern for approximately 20 years.
Repairs still need to be completed.[1]
Twenty years is not a short investigation.
Twenty years is a childhood.
How many more annual reports does a twenty-year problem need before the priority becomes:
Fix the connection?
Rock Bay: the chemical hot spot
The problem is not only sewage.
CRD says Victoria Harbour stormwater discharges had the highest concentrations of metals and PAHs in the Core Area.
PAHs are chemicals commonly associated with petroleum, combustion, asphalt, creosote and industrial activity.
The highest concentrations occurred at Outfall 629 in Rock Bay.
Upstream investigation found copper at more than 10,000 times the applicable BC marine aquatic-life guideline. Aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead and zinc were measured at roughly 10 to 100 times their guidelines.
CRD and Victoria staff found and reduced one business-waste source.
Good.
That proves source control works when the source is found.
But metals remain elevated, and other sources remain in the catchment.[1]
Eight City of Victoria municipal outfalls remain on CRD’s chemical Corrective Action List:
603, 614, 620, 627, 629, 633, 634 and 636.
There are only 14 corrective-action discharges in the entire Core Area.
Eight are City of Victoria municipal drains. Outfall 649 is listed separately as a private Victoria discharge requiring action.[1]
A Corrective Action List cannot become a permanent waiting room for polluted pipes.
Bowker Creek carries the problem toward Oak Bay
Bowker Creek runs through Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay before entering the ocean in Oak Bay.[5]
CRD lists the Bowker Creek contaminant investigation as:
“Ongoing; sewage overflow due to heavy rainfall, multiple sources.”[1]
Its bacteria results show why two samples can never tell the whole story:
1,700 E. coli per 100 mL in February 2024
6,700 in August 2024
230 in April 2025
29 in August 2025
4,100 after rain in January 2026[1]
The creek can look fairly clean one day and badly contaminated under different flow or rainfall conditions.
That is stormwater in a nutshell.
CRD also documented an oily spill in Bowker Creek in July 2025. Oak Bay installed absorbent booms and pads at several locations, with the last response point at Beach Drive. Victoria, neighbouring municipalities and the BC Ministry of Environment were involved.[6] (District of Oak Bay)
The mud on the bottom carries another warning.
A December 2024 Bowker Creek sediment sample contained lead at 224 milligrams per kilogram.
The probable-effects level shown in the same CRD table is 91 milligrams per kilogram. That is the level above which harmful biological effects are expected more often.
Another upstream Bowker sample contained elevated copper and PAHs.[1]
And at Willows Beach itself, CRD rated stormwater Outfall 320 High for Public Health Concern in 2025.[1]
The evidence does not prove Bowker Creek caused every Willows Beach advisory. There are several drains and possible sources along the shoreline.
But the public should not be asked to pretend these are separate worlds.
We have:
an urban creek with sewage-overflow problems;
multiple contamination sources still under investigation;
an oil spill;
contaminated creek sediment;
a high-rated stormwater outfall at Willows Beach; and
a shoreline used by families and swimmers.
That is one connected receiving environment.
Investigate it as one system.
The testing is useful—but it remains baseline monitoring
In 2025, CRD sampled 179 stormwater discharges, generally once in winter and once in summer.
Forty-one percent produced at least one E. coli count above 400 per 100 millilitres—a level CRD says can indicate sewage or animal waste with possible effects on people swimming or diving.
For environmental ratings, CRD collected only eight stormwater sediment samples across the entire Core Area.
The chemical assessment concentrates mainly on metals and PAHs.[1]
That is useful for screening and deciding where to investigate.
It is not a complete modern assessment of everything entering Victoria Harbour, the Gorge or Oak Bay from roads, tires, parking lots, industrial properties and aging sewage infrastructure.
CRD is already using better methods elsewhere
In Douglas Creek, CRD tested for 6PPD-quinone in 2025.
This is a tire-wear contaminant that is highly toxic to some salmon.
Three of eight samples exceeded the water-quality guideline.
All three exceedances occurred during rainfall.[1]
That tells us both what to test and when to test it.
Sample during rainfall.
Sample the first flush—the first dirty runoff after pollutants have accumulated through a dry period.
Do not rely mainly on two convenient calendar dates.
CRD-supported work in the Tod Creek watershed is already screening water for hundreds of substances, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, PCBs, bisphenols, PFAS and 6PPD-quinone.[7] (Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
DFO scientists have also developed a faster, highly sensitive method that can measure 6PPD-quinone using less than ten millilitres of water.[8] (Royal Society of Chemistry Publications)
Not every drain needs hundreds of tests every week.
But Victoria’s longest-running sewage-affected, industrial and high-traffic catchments deserve modern investigation.
The authority gap is not an excuse
CRD says it does not have authority to regulate releases into Core Area municipal storm drains.
Yet on the Saanich Peninsula, CRD operates a regulatory source-control service for Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney, including education, maintenance requirements, proper waste disposal and enforcement.[1]
That contrast deserves attention.
But it does not remove Victoria’s responsibility.
Victoria owns its stormwater infrastructure. It has bylaws. It can inspect, repair and enforce.
Passing responsibility between governments does not clean a single litre of water.
Cleaning the harbour floor while pollution continues from above
Transport Canada says Victoria Harbour still faces ongoing pollution from stormwater and sanitary waste.
Its monitoring includes harbour sediment, surface water and marine-life tissues to determine whether the environment is improving or being contaminated again.[2] (Transport Canada)
BC Hydro’s recent Selkirk Waterway investigations provide independent confirmation from the receiving environment.
Sediment samples contained metals, PAHs and PCBs above applicable guidelines at some locations. BC Hydro’s fish-habitat assessment also cited low dissolved oxygen and exceedances of copper, cadmium, zinc and bacteria in Gorge Waterway monitoring.[3][4]
Stormwater does not disappear when it leaves the pipe.
It becomes contaminated water.
Then contaminated sediment.
Then damaged habitat.
Then another public cleanup bill.
Cleaning the harbour bottom while allowing continuing contamination from above is not a long-term solution.
What must happen now
Keep monitoring—but use the information to finish the job.
Prioritize the longest-running High-rated drains and Victoria’s eight chemical corrective-action catchments.
Sample during rainfall and first-flush events, not mainly on fixed seasonal dates.
Expand testing at priority industrial, high-traffic and swimming-area drains to include modern contaminants such as 6PPD-quinone, PFAS, pharmaceuticals and endocrine-active compounds.
Follow contamination upstream across municipal and private-property boundaries. Repair cross-connections, enforce bylaws and stop prohibited discharges.
Test again afterward. Prove that bacteria declined, metals declined, receiving water improved and sediment is not being contaminated again.
Do not close the file because somebody repaired a pipe.
Prove the repair worked.
Our children should not inherit our excuses
Earlier generations built much of this infrastructure without today’s environmental science.
We do not have that excuse.
We know where many of the problem pipes are.
We know sewage and industrial waste do not belong in stormwater.
We know contaminated runoff damages creeks, shorelines and marine habitat.
We have better laboratories, better monitoring tools and decades of data.
Our children should not spend the next thirty years reading updated versions of the same report.
Our grandchildren should not inherit contaminated waterways and be told:
“We knew about it, but it was complicated.”
Of course it is complicated.
That is why we have engineers, scientists, utilities departments, bylaws, regulators and elected governments.
The public is not asking for magic.
We are asking for measurable progress.
Find the source.
Stop the discharge.
Fix the infrastructure.
Test it again.
Prove it worked.
Source control first. Then restore.
Technical References
1. Capital Regional District. Core Area Stormwater Quality Program 2025 Report. July 2026. See especially the main report, pp. 1–14; Appendix B, Public Health Concern Ratings; Appendix C, Bacterial Data; Appendix D, QA/QC; Appendix E, Contaminant Data; and Appendix F, Watercourse Monitoring.
Technical note: the narrative on main-report page 2 says 29 high-rated discharges, while Table A totals 28. This article uses the table total of 28.
2. Transport Canada. Victoria Harbour Floor Project Source Control and Sediment Management Plan. Identifies stormwater and sanitary waste as continuing pollution sources and describes monitoring of sediment, surface water and marine-life tissues. (Transport Canada)
3. Tetra Tech Canada Inc., for BC Hydro. Sediment Characterization—Cable 2L143 Replacement Project, Victoria, BC. Issued for use, July 8, 2025. Documents metals, PAHs and PCBs exceeding applicable sediment criteria at some Selkirk Waterway locations.
4. WSP Canada Inc., for BC Hydro. Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment and Offsetting Report—Victoria to Esquimalt Cable Replacement Project. August 29, 2025. Reviews Gorge Waterway water and sediment conditions and Fisheries Act habitat considerations.
5. Capital Regional District. Bowker Creek Watershed & Stewardship. Describes Bowker Creek’s route through Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay and its discharge to the ocean in Oak Bay. (Capital Regional District)
6. District of Oak Bay. Bowker Creek Spill Update. July 18, 2025. Records the July fuel spill response, placement of absorbent booms and pads, and intergovernmental source investigation. (District of Oak Bay)
7. Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Tod Creek Watershed Water Quality Reports, covering the 2023–24 wet season through the 2025 dry season. Prepared with CRD staff, Tsartlip First Nation, the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council and Friends of Tod Creek. (Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
8. Liao, X., Ross, A.R.S., and Brown, T.M. “An environmentally sensitive method for rapid monitoring of 6PPD-quinone in aqueous samples using solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.” RSC Sustainability 3 (2025): 4811–4817. DOI: 10.1039/D5SU00170F. (Royal Society of Chemistry Publications)
No comments:
Post a Comment