Data analysis for Senanus water issue.
May 31 and June 4, 2001 (Ed-B 591) per Janet
CLAIM: Further to continued review of the Senanus Public meeting transcript and analysis contributions made by the class via email and class discussion regarding this water issue, I have noticed that decisions are lacking in response to recommendations from the Minority Report, Capital Health Region, Residents’ association, and the requests of the residents of Senanus Dr. and Mt. Newton Crossroad, yet recommendations by the Majority Report have been responded to.
DATA: (p. 6) - Michael Magonnegal describing Majority Report of the Water Advisory Task Force-
MM: …. 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.)
Further to this (p. 7) Michael Magonnegal 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 be immediate response to the Majority Reports recommendations.)
The Majority report conflicts with the recommendations by the residents and CHR.
DATA: (p. 10) RR reviewing the Minority Report
RR: 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 noted from Council other than find info for alternative solutions.)
DATA: (p. 18)(Mr. Teller, resident, speaking to Robert Bradbury, Capital Health Region)
Teller: In the experience of Capital Health Region you’re suggesting that the long-term solution is an extension of the Municipal water service, is that correct?
RB/CHR: We suggested that in the first report, and we suggested that in the second report and we suggested that tonight as corroborated by our regional public health engineer, yes.
(No action noted on behalf of Council. No response.)
The Majority Report conflicts with Residents’ association.
DATA: (p. 21) Mr. Damguard, resident.
Damguard: ….The Residents’ association in our area has been working long and hard with presentation after presentation to Council, asking for endorsement for an application for a provincial and at the beginning the Federal government, to consider our request for assistance similar to that given to the Ardmore residents for city water. (No action noted. No response.)
The Majority Report does not address requests from residents. (Residents’ comments directly related to a request are noted briefly here. The full transcript provides multiple detailed examples and implications of poor water quality and quantity.)
DATA: (p. 25 — 26)
No name: …. The fact that we can’t drink the water, that’s not a big deal. The fact that there isn’t very much of it, we’re prepared not to grow things and not to, and be pretty careful….But this fire hazard thing is a pretty big thing with us. (No action noted. No comments, no response.)
DATA: (p. 24)
Byer: ….I respectfully request that you Mr. Mayor, and members of Council allow us to be included in municipal water system. (No action noted. No comments, no response.)
Jones: (p. 25) ….it’s the time the municipality did the right thing and provided a proper water supply to its older residents or at least not block the application for a grant. (No action noted.)
MacLean: I’d like to say that we welcome the idea of a water main going down Mount Newton to Senanus whole-heartedly. ….I would encourage you (council) to do everything possible to see that this happens not just for Senanus Drive who need it desperately but for us who would like to have this comfort. (No action noted. No comment, no response.)
Towler: (p.32) If we take people off the aquifer and put them on a water main we will be supporting more water in that creek. (Hagen Creek). (No comment, no response.)
As I reread the transcripts, it becomes more evident that residents are in urgent need of help to finding a solution to their water problem. I continue to be surprised and puzzled by the lack of decision-making and action on behalf of the Council to address the immediate need for potable water and fire safety needs. It may be helpful at this time to consider issues for which decisions need to be made in order to address the whole concept of the water issue for Senanus.and Mount Newton Crossroad residents and members of the community.
Regarding decision-making, I wonder about the "process" for doing so. How will this community go about making a decision?
Regarding issues, I wonder about this community’s 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.
…Janet