One of us has more free time...

Hint: It isn't me.

I said that, with environmental impact being the only consideration, it was worse to build the plant. I said that the first time. You appear to have missed it. Cheaper is not the object, the environment is.
You might have skipped the part where I said that the original assumptions will affect the findings.

I did not skip that part. I am addressing the fact that you brought up monetary cost in multiple places.

You might also have missed the part where I said that making it public allows the public to see what those original assumptions were.

Again, reading comprehension. The report exists and is public. What is not public are the contacts between business and politicians where businesses inform newly elected politicians about existing public information before the politicians do something stupid (like make a promise to fix what ain't broken).

And whether they agree with them.

Again, all of your criticisms about the conductance of the report are off-base. The reports in question were conducted publically and are freely available. Talking about that indicates that you have not actually understood the scenario that I was talking about.

Which is, as you should know, private business contacts bringing up an issue that is sensitive from a public relations point of view, merely to point out facts that are publically documented.

Cheaper is not the object, the environment is.
Ben, give me enough money and I can turn raw sewage into drinking water. With no more impact on the local environment than any other office building would have. But, it will be extremely expensive.

If you are going to raise a straw man, at least make it believable, OK? Just the needs of delivering sewage etc to and from, plus the power requirements of treatment, make your claim infeasible with current technology.

Major factors included that the only available areas to build it happen to be fragile wetlands, the effort of building one involves considerable erosion, and Victoria is unusually well situated for direct dumpage.
Remember what I said about original assumptions? You've just illustrated that. You're thinking that you have to take up land that isn't already used. Why not just grab a block of downtown?

You can't just grab a block of downtown unless you re-route the existing sewage system all over town to direct the sewage to your ridiculously placed sewage treatment plant. That construction effort involves even more excavation etc, with an even larger overall ecological impact than building the plant in a previously undeveloped area.

Yes, I know that isn't feasible, but it is an illustration about how you don't even think of your initial assumptions. Which is why the process has to be public. Someone else might have a different view based upon different assumptions and those assumptions might result in a "better" policy.

I find it an even better illustration of how you are just throwing out objections without bothering to sanity check them first...

But there is no good scientific or engineering reason to eliminate that option.
Possibly. That is another of your assumptions. Suppose someone decided to flush more hazardous materials? You are assuming that they won't.

Please note that the possibility of a change in the usage pattern is one of the potential costs of the existing system. It should not be an a priori reason to eliminate the option. (Not being a sewage expert, I don't know how much ongoing monitoring was part of the system. I know there was some. I only know about this because I lived there, and knew an environmental engineer who did a lot of the measurements for the report.)

And when you include it, the only tradeoff for building the affair is public relations versus the environment. The environment won.
Again, as long as your initial assumptions are correct, that will be true. Now, what happens when someone decides to get rid of 1,000 gallons of DDT by flushing it a gallon at a time?

The same thing that would happen if they put the gallons on a boat and went out to the strait. Hopefully you catch them.

The reports, furthermore, were public record.
Now, that fits with my original position how? Oh, that's right. That WAS my original position.

Having local businesses contact politicians and attempt to affect policy by privately pointing out reports that were produced by their own departments was not part of your original position...

But the question kept on coming up for public relations reasons.
And what is the nature of politics? Are people crying because they have to do their job?

Um...I am not sure what you think is being demonstrated. The fact that the issue keeps on coming up means that the policy decision keeps getting revisited, which means that local businesses have reason to keep pointing out why the policy is as it is.

When it came up with a new round of politicians, the reports were privately reported to them, and as a result the study got duplicated somewhat less often (at city expense) than it might otherwise have been.
Hmmm, I find it strange that no one managed to hold on to the original report. Couldn't they just re-check the assumptions and calculations used in that? Isn't checking a report for accuracy less expensive and time consuming than writing a new report?

Do you always miss the point like this?

Reviewing an existing report, seeing the calculations and analysis, and realizing that the figures are still in the right ballpark is indeed easily done. That is what the local businessmen encourage the politicians to do.

Actually conducting an environmental impact study is not nearly so cheap. Even if you have an existing one, you still need to go back over a lot of ground and redo measurements to estimate, for instance, what the impact of erosion might be. (A few dry years can change vegetation, and that affects the answer significantly.)

Starting a bidding process for building a new plant before realizing that it is stupid to build one also costs a lot.

The environmental movement seems to be more filled with enthusiasm and good intentions than knowledge and basic common sense.
I think the same could be said of just about any human endevour.

That doesn't make it wrong.

As for your final
suggestion, what is or is not directly related to policy? Who decides that?
Well, if there's any question about it, I'd let a judge decide. I think it's better to err on the side of disclosure rather than secrecy. But that's just me. Other than that, the official knows whether something is related to policy or not.

You may think that the definition of what is or is not public policy is clear, but I don't. However I don't have time to discuss it, so I will have to let it drop.

Cheers,
Ben

I said the report should be public.

You said it was.

I said the assumptions made in it should be public.

They are.

And so on and so on and so on.

So, what's the problem?

Public disclosure? It seems that such is being met.

What is not public are the contacts between business and politicians where businesses inform newly elected politicians about existing public information before the politicians do something stupid (like make a promise to fix what ain't broken).

Okay, so you've lost me again. If it isn't regarding policy, why should it be public?

And that isn't regarding policy. Telling someone that a report exists IN PUBLIC that will address concerns that some citizens might have.......????

And the report can be accessed and verified by anyone IN THE PUBLIC? Right?

So, if an elected official states that s/he is basing policy on a public report......... That's what I've been pushing for.

You can't just grab a block of downtown unless you re-route the existing sewage system all over town to direct the sewage to your ridiculously placed sewage treatment plant. That construction effort involves even more excavation etc, with an even larger overall ecological impact than building the plant in a previously undeveloped area.

Hmmm, so, somplace that is already paved and such presents more of an ecological problem than a wetland? I find that difficult to believe.

I find it an even better illustration of how you are just throwing out objections without bothering to sanity check them first...

No. I'm illustrating that you have assumptions you don't realize. Now, I said that it wasn't feasible, so that seems to indicate that I did do a sanity check first. But you say that I didn't. Then you say that tearing up a block of downtown would have more ecological impact than tearing up a similar sized chunk of wetlands.

I expected better of you, Ben.

Please note that the possibility of a change in the usage pattern is one of the potential costs of the existing system.

Which is an "assumption" concerning the practice. You assume that such will not happen.

It should not be an a priori reason to eliminate the option. (Not being a sewage expert, I don't know how much ongoing monitoring was part of the system. I know there was some. I only know about this because I lived there, and knew an environmental engineer who did a lot of the measurements for the report.)

No, it should not. But it should be addressed. More safety costs more (be it money or land or whatever). Your solution is good as long as all the assumptions are met.

Your solution breaks down when those assumptions are not met.

Therefore, you need to detail the assumptions.

The same thing that would happen if they put the gallons on a boat and went out to the strait. Hopefully you catch them.

Yep. But in that case, they're doing the transportation on their own. Rather that using the provided disposal system.

Having local businesses contact politicians and attempt to affect policy by privately pointing out reports that were produced by their own departments was not part of your original position...

Phrased like that, you are correct. I wanted the reports and such made public. Now, we've gone over this and it's turned out that the reports WERE made public and the ONLY thing is whether the names of the individuals who directed the elected officals to the PUBLIC reports should be released.

Hmmm, if that is ALL they did, then I don't see a problem.

In fact, I would say that any basic research on the part of any clerk checking into that policy would result in the same information being found.

Um...I am not sure what you think is being demonstrated. The fact that the issue keeps on coming up means that the policy decision keeps getting revisited, which means that local businesses have reason to keep pointing out why the policy is as it is.

Simple, PR is part of politics. Now, as I've stated above, this information could be found by any clerk doing basic research into the policy. Yet you're afraid that any business that tells the offical where to look is going to have a PR problem.

Even though this issue keeps coming up.

Whatever.

So, the corps could keep quiet and another study could be commissioned (why wasn't the original report found during the initial research phase?) and it would result in the exact same findings as the original report.

How many times does this come up in, say, a ten year period?

Not that I'm saying such a situation couldn't exist, but the people there must have DAMN SHORT MEMORIES.

Or is there something else?

The more information you give me on this, the stranger it seems.

Do you always miss the point like this?

Reviewing an existing report, seeing the calculations and analysis, and realizing that the figures are still in the right ballpark is indeed easily done. That is what the local businessmen encourage the politicians to do.

But they could keep quiet and the EXACT SAME THING would happen. There would be some research into WHY you were doing the dumping which would turn up the original report which would be verified.

Why do the businessmen have longer memories than the people in the administrations?

Actually conducting an environmental impact study is not nearly so cheap. Even if you have an existing one, you still need to go back over a lot of ground and redo measurements to estimate, for instance, what the impact of erosion might be. (A few dry years can change vegetation, and that affects the answer significantly.)

So the original report might not be valid anymore? Is that what you're saying?

But doesn't that bring us right back to the original point of corporations using "facts" to support their case?

Welcome to IWETHEY!