Situating the Water Problem

Victoria is situated on the Northwest Coast of the North American continent, usually associated with a lot of rain and sufficient water resources. Yet water quantity has been and continues to be a problem. There is insufficient water in the reservoirs supplying the Capital Regional District (Victoria and surroundings) so that nearly every summer, there are more or less severe water restrictions. At the time of this writing, winter has seen less than 60% of normal rainfall. The Capital Regional District has passed a bylaw to implement at water restriction level 3, which means that lawns can no longer be watered, flowers and vegetable gardens have to be watered by hand or using drip systems. On the reverse side, much of the wastewater is currently being released with minimum processing into the surrounding ocean. The local newspapers recurrently carry articles that feature citizens and local (municipal) government contest access to drinking water and removal of wastewater. Central Saanich is one of these communities embroiled in a variety of controversial issues about access to and removal of water.

The controversy over water at the core of the current article takes place in Central Saanich, a suburban community on the southern part of Vancouver Island. In this part of the country, water has been a problem for some time. Despite its location on the West Coast, normally characterized by its rain forests, the microclimate of Central Saanich is such that it only receives 850 millimeters of rain per year, most of it falling in the October-to-March period and very little during the remainder of the year. The aquifers below the community are insufficient to supply the community with water, which is being supplied by dams in the Sooke Hills, about 40 kilometers away.

Recent developments have exacerbated the issue by altering the water’s flow over and through the ground. Much of Central Saanich lies in the Hagan Creek watershed. To drain the bogs that used to exist before the arrival of the Europeans, farmers straightened the creek turning it into a channel. These changes allowed the water to flow away faster–with the effect that in the summer months, the creek is but a trickle (10—20 liters/second) supplying insufficient water for resident farmers to water their fields. A considerable number of wells are used for irrigation purposes. Changes related to urbanization and the increase in impervious surfaces (pavement), loss of forest cover throughout the watershed and along the stream banks, loss of wetlands and recharge areas, and the loss of natural stream conditions further increase the pressure on the aquifers.

To have an appropriate mechanism to deal with the pressing water problems, the community formed the Water Advisory Task Force. It's role was to make recommendations to Council with respect to drainage, watershed, water management and other environment impacts related to water issues. Its seven members represents a diverse group of residents including the founders of the Hagan Creek~KENNES Watershed Project.

Central Saanich is a rural community that spreads over a considerable area, with two major agglomerations–Brentwood and Saanichton. Senanus Drive, the area involved in the controversy, lies in a wooded area on the ocean, about 5 kilometers away from Brentwood and Saanichton, respectively. The residents have individual wells that draw on the local aquifers. For years, the local newspapers reported that in the summer months, the water in the Senanus Drive area was biologically and chemically contaminated. Sometimes, the residents were advised by the Regional Health Board not to use their water, or to boil it considerably; many residents have opted to get their water from gas stations in Brentwood or Saanichton. For 30 years, the residents of Senanus Drive demanded to be connected to the water main that supplies other residents of Central Saanich (McCullogh, 1999). The residents brought the issues forward to the Saanich Peninsula Water Commission, which decided that the issue was a municipal concern (Minutes of January 20, 1998 Meeting,). However, Central Saanich town council and mayor blocked all demands, attempting to keep the water main away from Senanus Drive to prevent the area from being developed (Watts, 2001).

At issue is not just the water for Senanus Drive, for the residents of Mount Newton Cross Road, which connects Saanichton and Senanus Drive, currently draw their water from wells and would "benefit" from a water main. Furthermore, a water main would also come with fire hydrants and decreased fire insurance costs for the currently unprotected homes. However, the appropriate capacity for fire protection by far outstrips the water use by the existing homes, so that laying a water main opens up the possibility for further development of the area.

In the past, individual families (through consultants they hired) and the Capital Health Region had tested the water. Invariably, a variety of problems arose including chemical and biological contaminants. However, (majority of) the Water Advisory Task Force decided that previous studies and testimonial evidence was insufficient or flawed so that it decided to hire an independent consultant firm, Lowen Hydrogeology Consulting. This consulting firm regularly works for various municipalities in the areas, with special expertise in groundwater, impact of effluents and sewage on water quality. The consultant is used to controversy, as there have been cases other cases where his studies have been contradicted by the results of other studies, a fact that has led litigants in other cases to play these reports against each other.

Because the water advisory task force could not come to a unanimous recommendation, two reports were filed with the town council, the majority and minority reports. The majority report largely based its recommendations on the data provided by Lowen Hydrogeology Consulting. The minority report grounded its assessment on two major pieces of information: the degree of the problem on Senanus Drive as apparent from testimonial evidence of residents and the lower than recommended water quantity available to two-thirds of the families.

The senior engineering technologist for Central Saanich, Donavon Bishop, prepared a report to Council that summarizes the results of all other reports and proposes a serious of policies and options. A large part of the report focuses on the Official Community Plan and the Land Use Bylaws. (This report had been reviewed and endorsed by the director of financial services and the director of planning and building services. Furthermore, municipal engineer and clerk administrator had signed to concur with the recommendations.) In particular, the report details that these existing documents do not allow the subdivision of existing rural and agricultural properties for the development of new housing units.

At issue therefore was not merely whether and how to get sufficient and suitable water to the residents of Senanus Drive but also whether any changes would allow further development of the area. Following the meeting in which the report was accepted Council decided to provide the public with a forum in which reports and issues could be discussed. It organized a 1.5-hour open house, where the different reports and graphics prepared by the technical presenters were available. This event was followed by the public meeting in which technical and advisory bodies made presentations (45 minutes), the public could ask questions directed towards the technical presentations (15 minutes), and members of the public made comments.

Research Design

The present study is embedded in a larger, longitudinal study of science in the community (e.g., Lee & Roth, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Roth & Lee, 2001a, 2001b). In the course of our more encompassing study, we became aware of the struggle of the Senanus Drive residents to obtain drinking water of more reliable quality and quantity than their individual wells can currently supply.

For the past three years, one of us (Roth) has conducted an ethnographic study of science and scientific literacy in Central Saanich. The study focused on the issue of environmental health in the Hagan Creek watershed, and particularly issues surrounding water quality and quantity in Hagan Creek and the aquifers underneath the watershed. One important site of study are the activities of an environmental group–the Hagan Creek~KENNES Watershed Project. Its mandate is "to protect and enhance the Hagan Creek stream system in order to maintain sufficient water quality and quantity so to achieve the best possible balance between ecological and agricultural needs of the watershed, and to maintain these functions for future generations." In the context of the overall study, Roth became aware of the water issues at Senanus Drive and began to collect pertinent data.

The data sources collected include extensive field notes, publications produced and appropriated by the activists, videotapes of public events, audio-taped interviews, newspaper clippings, informal interviews, and texts and inscriptions from the region that relate to the issues of water, water treatment, watershed management, and water-related ecological restoration. On several occasions, groups of activists and other interested local residents who walked sections of Hagan Creek with different consultants were videotaped. The activists drew on these consultants for advice on how to improve the creek, find the best trout habitat, and how to expand the healthier sections of the creek. We interviewed a range of participants in the Hagan Creek~KENNES Project, students, and local residents–all interviews were audio- or videotaped. For the present study, we drew on the publicly available data–reports, newspaper articles, minutes of meetings, and the transcript of a public meeting concerning the Senanus Drive water issue. These include reports to Council by the Capital Health Region, Lowen Consulting, by the Water Advisory Task Force (interim and 2 final), and a memorandum by the Senior Engineering Technologist summarizing the issues for a regular council meeting. Also, the correspondence between Council and Frank Towler, President of the local voters association was obtained.

We are not only authors but also, in a sense, participants. We provide a reading of the events that make the debate over water for Senanus Drive residents a contentious issue. We are therefore representing an informed audience to the struggle over water, which could, and in one case already does, affect ourselves one day. Our ultimate goal was to construct understandings that are not only intelligible to people in the community but also transferable, and therefore useable by those (including ourselves) who are and will be involved in a similar struggle over (a) basic resource(s).

Our analyses are grounded in a reflexive hermeneutic phenomenology (Ricœur, 1991). We used transcripts of a public meeting and newspaper articles relating to the Senanus Drive water controversy as primary data sources. We began by reading and interpreting the materials individually and subsequently met to discuss our analyses as a group. The written analyses were shared through a website. We refined our interpretations in subsequent discussions and by taking into account new developments of the issue as these played themselves out in the local newspapers while we conducted this analysis. We also tested emerging hypotheses by explicitly seeking negative cases (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), that is, for evidence that did not support a hypothesis or claim. This was achieved through a division of labor. One or two authors developed the analysis of a dimension identified and prepared a written analysis. In sessions involving all authors, the other members served as devil's advocates seeking information that disconfirmed the presented analyses.

We recorded about half our discussions, making them thereby available for subsequent viewing and constituting them as a document of the emerging concepts and understanding. That is, the recordings document "progressive subjectivity" (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and, together with the written artifacts, provide an audit trail; both processes are essential components of research that contribute to the quality of interpretive research (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

In this article, we investigate a controversial issue in which scientists and engineers play an important role through the perspective of informed but not necessarily scientifically trained citizen. We came together as part of an advanced course in interpretive inquiry offered by Roth in the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria. Because of our backgrounds, we bring to the analyses quite divergent interpretive horizons. But whatever our prior experiences and personal stance, we realized that we could have been, and in a sense are, in a similar position as the residents of Senanus Drive. We therefore expected our analysis not only to yield an understanding of the unfolding controversy, but also hoped that our understanding would allow us to be better positioned should we be involved in a similar controversy.

Roth is a trained scientist (M.Sc. physics), who had taught science in middle and high schools for more than a decade, and conducted research for another decade on learning science and scientific literacy from elementary school to university levels and among scientists. He is a resident of Central Saanich and has conducted research in the area (schools, activism) for the past four years. His professional and personal interests are the relationship of citizens and science (or scientists), and in promoting citizenship among middle school students through their contributions to the community by conducting environmental and ecological studies in Hagan Creek and the watershed (e.g., Roth & Lee, 2001a). Donna Tait is a native born Victorian. She is an R.N. whose focus both personally and professionally revolves around issues of illness prevention and health promotion from a holistic viewpoint. As a health professional she is acutely interested in the effects of personal, community and global health issues and the impact of these issues in mobilizing internal strength in the healing process. She is currently provides community-based nursing care and, in an acute care setting, assists clients to live with ostomy. Robin McMillan is a registered nurse who has been actively involved in the development and delivery of community-based health care programs and services for over fifteen years. She views health as a personal resource that includes social and personal assets, as well as physical capacities. In her professional practice and personal life, she strives to respect the beliefs and values inherent in health promotion. Janet Riecken is a graduate student of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the Faculty of Education at the University of Victoria, BC. During the past 20 years, Janet has been devoted to a family of 4 while working part-time at a variety of jobs including salesclerk, waitress, painter/decorator, customer service representative, and research assistant. Her current research interests are education, culture, and digital video with a focus on how one experiences using the medium of digital video to tell a story or present a point of view.

((One or two sentence statements of each author.))

References