Every society identifies things which are considered to be of great use or service for their community. We use the word ’values’ to identify those elements in our personal lives as well as in the life of our community that we consider to be esteemed or highly desirable. In these transcripts we see evidence of a number of values being named by the participants. Four elements which are found in the data we examined have ‘value’ attached to them either indirectly, by receiving respect, or directly, by being named. These four elements are process, quantity and quality of water, cost effectiveness and preservation of the rural nature of the community.

At the beginning of the public meeting, the moderator of the meeting, Von Bishop took care to outline the process that would be followed in the meeting. He indicated that there was an agenda available for the attendees, and then he summarized the agenda noting the order of events, and the time that was suggested. Mr. Bishop takes care to introduce each speaker, and explain that person’s role in the presentation. He notifies the audience that the procedure is being taped, and asks each participant to use the microphone so they can be clearly heard. When the majority and minority reports are presented Von Bishop is careful to explain to the audience what each of those documents was, and how they came to be. At various points in the meeting, he attempted to ensure that the audience was aware that there was a process that was being followed. At the end of Reeves speech he censors the speaker for introducing an element of what he identified as ‘mudslinging’; requests that McGonnigle not reply to the allegation of conflict of interest, and then once again explains to the participants what the purpose and process of the meeting will be. (12) Further in the transcript , on page 15 he again breaks into the dialogue by indicating that the meeting’s purpose was not to investigate the details of accuracy of each report, " I don’t want to, as I say, get into a slug-fest’ over the particular pieces of the report . . . . I would like to carry on with the meeting" ( 15) Again, when Naught is speaking, Von Bishop intercedes in the dialogue to request that public opinion be kept out of the comments, He insists that Naught ask a direct question of a technical nature. (16) . When the meeting entered the part for public comment, Bishop repeated the need to identify yourself, to speak about your experience, and to try not to repeat what others had said, in the interests of brevity.

In addition to the process followed in the public meeting, we see evidence of a value attached to a process in the formation of the Water Advisory Task Force. It was given a clear mandate, and asked to report back to Council. Unfortunately, in this case, the process resulted in a split in the Task Force.

In these two examples of process, there was a desire to be perceived to be fair, and yet, at the end of both of them, there was a sense of dissatisfaction. Clearly, the process, which was set up to appear to be fair, didn’t meet the needs of all the residents of the area.

"Victoria and the islands are noted for its clean air and water. It’s our God given right as far as I’m concerned to have clean air and water" (Beyer, p. 25) In this statement Mr, Beyer clearly identifies the value that he, and our society give to water . In the controversy about Senanus Road there is concern expressed about both the quantity and quality of the water to the area. RB from the Capital Health Region states that ‘there is still a health and safety concern over the quantity and quality of the water in the Senanus Drive area. " (4) He acknowledges the seeming discrepancies in the reports, and identifies the variations in the seasons as the reason for a lack of consistency in the reports. However, his final recommendation is that there is a need for along term solution to the water ‘problem’ in the area. There are many examples in the testimonials provided by the residents of the inability to grow a garden, the problems with washing clothes in water that stains them, the need for replacing pipes frequently because of the corrosive nature of the water, the need to purchase drinking water, the need to monitor use of water to ensure an on going supply of water, the expense of insurance because of the lack of nearby water in case of fire, and the fear of bathing in the water. These frustrations about the quantity and quality of water available to them are clearly expressed by the residents who spoke about how their experiences with the water available to them negatively impacted their quality of life. One resident stated that third world countries had more attention paid to their water needs than the residents of Senanus Rd. ( ) Another resident repeatedly said he was ashamed by the attitude of the council to the basic need for access to safe and plentiful water. . In addition to the need expressed by the residents of the area, one member of the farming community,

Van Treight, stated that the agricultural nature of the community was in jeopardy because of the lack of available water for irrigation. It is very clear in this transcript that water is a commodity that is valued; and the denial of access to safe water by the Council is a major concern in this community.

The third value that is expressed in the data is cost-effectiveness. Interestingly, this argument is presented by both sides of the controversy. The residents who wish to have the water mains extended to their homes maintain that it is cheaper for them to pay to have the water main expended, than it is to continue to pay exorbitant insurance fees, replacement costs for pipes and appliances in their homes, and for the delivery of potable water. ( cost of water main is unclear — check this out) On page 22, Frank Tallis identifies that the annual savings to each home for household insurance and water equipment repair would be " $73.00 per month. For an annual saving to each home of $180.00 or 27 hundred dollars over 15 years." He further states that a dollar value can not be put on ‘improved health, the enjoyment of our homes and gardens, reduced fear of forest fire, and the freedom not to worry about the next drop of water." The residents who oppose the water main solution argue that it is more cost efficient to have the individual homeowners pay for their own costs to purify the water that comes out of their wells. McGonigle sums up his presentation by saying, " A pipeline assessment is by miles the most expensive option and it may not be solving the problem by bringing in new water when to a great extent the problem is uh, made, is uh individual wells. Umm and the individual solutions overall much more cost effective." (7)

The final value represented in this controversy is that of the preservation of a rural lifestyle. This value is present in statements that urge the control of urban encroachment on this rural area. McGonnigle states that people knew what they were getting when they purchased the properties they now own. He states that it is necessary to provide infrastructure to the area in a way that doesn’t invite development and change to the area. He refers to the "Smart Growth’ movement in North America that is promoting water conservancy measures and the management of on-site water management practices. He concludes his argument by asking residents to consider "how we as a community can be at the leading edge of uh uh rural urban planning that both meets the needs of residents in residential areas and also protects the rural characteristics of this wonderful municipality". Mr Damguard ( 21) points out that any future development is in the hands of the Council because of the community plan, thereby indicating that the concern for the preservation of the rural character of the land is not going to be harmed by the provision of water to the area. In addition, Mr. Van Treight identifies the need for additional water to support the rural agricultural activities on the Peninsula. ( 28)

Each of the values mentioned above creates its own controversy as residents describe their values and identify the means necessary to allow them to have these valued products or services provided to them. The value attached to process is articulated on the one hand by the identification of what appears to be a ‘fair’ process. However, the residents of Senanus Drive’s life experiences, by being relegated to the end of the meeting, haven’t been recognized as much as the real ‘scientific’ data presented at the beginning of the meeting. The value of quantity and quality of water is expressed clearly by the residents of Senanus Dr., and by the representative from CHD. However, this value is lost in scientific jargon and argument over testing procedures and results when represented by the Majority report representative Mr. McGonnigle.

The value of cost effectiveness was expressed by both sides, with calculations and figures to support both sides. And finally, the value attached to the preservation of the rural nature of the area is presented strongly by the Majority report supporters. The facts that the council has passed legislation limiting the ability to subdivide land, and that, the farmers of the area have expressed a need for more water to enhance the agricultural activities, are not acknowledged by the Majority Report group. These value conflicts have contributed in large measure to the creation and maintenance of the water contoversy in this area