Narrative per Janet re: Residents’ input is undesired:

The transcript of the Senanus Public Meeting held September 22, 1999, shows that the residents` stories about their water problems experienced in the past and present are presented late in the evening, after which presentations were made by scientists, councilors, Capital Health Region representatives, and the water task force. The evening’s agenda has focused on presentation of various reports followed by question and answer period from the audience. Late in the evening, and the last item on the agenda at "9:30 PM," the meeting is moved to "public opinion and comments." The audience is asked to, "Just give your name and address for the record and try and keep your comments as brief as you can in the interest of time." Once the last comment has been made, the meeting is called to an end. The agenda has not included time for question and answer period from the audience and visiting scientists regarding the issues brought forward by the residents who are experiencing ‘first hand’ the affects of non-potable water and inadequate water supply.

In addition to lack of time allowed for discussion of issues mentioned by the residents, certain comments have been made regarding the residents’ stories that may negatively influence the ongoing investigative and decision-making processes of the community as it seeks to arrive at a solution and take action through consensus - by the community for the community. During the meeting the mediator provides guidance which moves the meeting along, however, he may have unnecessarily taken on further responsibility by summarizing for the audience what a particular resident may have presented. This is noticed in the following comment: "I don’t know if Ed said anything in particular. All he was doing was presenting his side."

Further review of the Senanus Public meeting transcript indicates that decisions by council are lacking in response to recommendations from the Minority Report, Capital Health Region, Residents’ Association, and the requests of the residents of Senanus Drive and Mt. Newton Crossroad, yet recommendations by the Majority Report have been responded to.

For example, the Majority Report of the Water Advisory Task Force, as presented at the meeting by Michael Magonnegal, Chairman of the Water Advisory, states that, "….After a year and many, many hundreds of hours, we produced an interim report, which is a very lengthy report, that really has one simple recommendation. And it was: "It is the recommendation of this report that additional information be gathered with respect to the chemical and bacteriological characteristics of the underlying aquifer through random testing of at least eight wells by a professional hydrologist." …that led to Mr. Loen’s assessment….

(As heard in the transcript, this recommendation has been carried out and findings presented at the public meeting.) As noted in the transcript, Michael Magonnegal (MM) suggests…. "number one, a systematic problem of groundwater supply in the Senanus area has not been identified instead solutions to problems both quantity and quality can be provided on an individual basis." …. "Mr. Loen has said, to do solve problems individually uh, then we should do assessment after that and this, at the end of the case by case assessment would be done, and this approach be reviewed based on the full and complete assessment of each residence." (Prior to the above MM states "it is anticipated that this will solve the Senanus water issue in possibly every case." If so, this would serve as an immediate response to the Majority Report’s recommendations.)

It is also apparent from the transcripts that the Majority Report conflicts with the recommendations by the residents and CHR. In the review of the Minority Report provided by Rick Reeve, also member of the Water Task Force, he states, "So we felt that when all of the dollars were in, the community cistern and the extended pipeline were very similar in cost….We think there is enough room for interpretation and our recommendation for Council was to go ahead and umm, let these residents, whether they do it with their own money or get some infrastructure grants to go ahead and get this extension done." (Pipeline extension) No action has been noted from Council other than to seek information regarding alternative solutions.

The residents’ accounts of poor water quality, supply, and fire safety concerns provide a situation that is urgent, yet decisions made and actions taken so far have not resulted in a solution. It may be helpful to reconsider the process of decision-making within the context of the ‘community’ for the ‘community’. It may be important to reconsider the requests made by the Minority Report, the Residents’ Association report, and the reports made by the residents who are experiencing the immediate affects of the water situation for Senanus.

For further consensus it appears that this community will be able to identify further concerns through consideration of policies regarding zoning bylaws, urban/rural issues, water rights, voting rights, council duties, landowners and citizens rights, fire safety policy, voting rights, health policy and other categories which may be important to the maintenance of a healthy community. According to the latest developments of this issue as it extends into the realm of outside observation, it will be important to think about who will make decisions based on the information provided by the residents, the community council and their reports, the CHR and its reports, the water task force and its reports, and now the CRD Health Officer, Dr. Richard Stanwick? Will Richard Stanwick review residents’ stories as well as scientific reports?