Claim: The solution for the water problem has to pass through the development issue.

Data: In the transcripts, we notice that every time someone talks about the extension of the pipeline, the development issue emerges. This is a serious concern in this community and it seems that the government is using the water to control the development in this area. The extension of the pipeline is connected to development, so they don’t want to consider this option. And this is more than just because of the cost of the extension; it’s because they think that extension pipeline means development.

[page 2]

VB: (…) The Council also asked for a report on the planning implications and what would happen if a water main were to be a solution for the problem. And the report highlights that under the official community plan, that area is to experience limited growth, very small number of lots are expected to be created in addition to those that are already there. The water line may or may not facilitate those lots going ahead and could also, possibly be used to help agriculture. Under the land use by-law, an ability under a particular zone, RE3, to be sub-divided to a smaller size if there was a water main available. That provision in the land use by-law was revised this year and so the RE3 Lot has certain size whether or not there’s water available. So a waterline in and of itself would be neutral under that it may encourage people to try and rezone to different use but as it stands now it would be neutral.

[pages 7-8]

MM: (…) Secondly, we are here at the, the, what is the urban/ rural conflict. I mean there is no question. We are sitting right on the border of rural and urban choices. And if you look at an arial map, for example, of the Saanich Peninsula over many years, you’ll see that gradual encroachment and expansion of umm, uhh, umm, suburban development. The infrastructure and we did in fact do a study of, of this, for the Task Force. Infrastructure and provision of infrastructure plays an important role in that expansion. We noticed as well that the OCP in the area, going back to the seventies and onwards talks about providing limited service in these areas because of population diffusion and the maintenance of the rural character. The definition of the rural zoning is limited infrastructure. So people who moved to this area , including all of us in the Task Force, comes, come knowing that the community decision, the community status quo is one of providing lesser than the normal residential level of service in order to be cost effective and in order to maintain the qual-, rural qual-, rural character of, of, of the environment. And I think that it’s important, and this is a discussion that we can have at that, that the, the, the, that we recognize that our decisions do have an impact. (…) So in conclusion, The Task Force’s Report which has provoked controversy, is we feel based, on the best evidence that we have now been able to attain as a result of the deliber- request of the Task Force. That there are interesting solutions, cost-effective solutions out there that meet commu-, individual needs and community needs and that a part of that, we should move from this into a much larger discussion about 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 uh, uh, wonderful municipality.

[page 21]

DAMGUARD: (…) There are some residents in the area expressing concern that uncontrollable subdivision will be the outcome of supply of city water. I do not think that this is a factor any more than it was in the Ardmore project . Future subdivision is in the hands of both Council and the local homeowners. Public hearings would have to held, environmental impact studies must be done, in the same sort of factors that affect an applicant for subdivision now will still be in force, if and when water is finally brought to us.

[page 25]

BYER: (…) Also, future development should not be your concern right now as far as this issue is, is concerned. You should be concerned about your existing taxpayers. Please do not miss what the issue is, it is water, not development. I don’t buy into the nimby approach of some misinformed people. There is very little development that could occur from the water going into Senanus and their many ways that Council can curtail any future development if you’re worried about it which I now you are. And that’s fair. I’m worried about it too. Remember yourselves about us.

[page 30]

DENFORD: (…) And of course the second obstruction has been mentioned here tonight which is the development bogey and I think that this is the red herring that precipitated a staff report to the Council which horror of horrors said that the water main extension would create a potential ten additional two acre lots from four existing large properties. This card was played for some months until Council amended the land use by-law regulation in the R33 zone preventing this from happening so that has disappeared. To my knowledge none of the owners had any intention of subdividing anyway.

[page 32]

TOWLER: (…) I want to make a comment that the people in the area where the water main would go, I believe they’re all very environ mentally conscious and wish to maintain the environment as it is today. We’re not interested in development. (…) If we take people off the aquifer and put them on a water main we will be supporting more water in that creek.

"Central Saanich Mayor Wayne Hunter said it’s a longtime municipal policy to keep potable water away from people living on Senanus Drive. That way the municipality discourages future development. ‘It’s a longstanding policy of making sure the people are on wells and not having potable water down there", said Hunter."

"Gordon Denford (…) said he believes the municipality has acted without ethics. (…) The municipality to use clean water as a means of controlling development is indefensible, he said. As a developer himself, Denford said municipalities have zoning bylaws, development permits, building permits and a whole host of legitimate means to control land use. They have no ethical right to withhold potable water from people, he said. As well, drinking water is not the municipal service that makes high-density development possible, Denford said. A sewer system is the determining factor for that, and Senanus uses septic systems. Besides, said Denford, nobody on Senanus wants to start subdividing."

"Frank Towler, another Senanus resident, said it has become plain to him that council is not satisfied with controlling the present, it wants to ensure development can’t happen 50 years down the road. ‘They are using water as a weapon for the future’, said Towler."

From the above, It’s seems to me very clear that the development is a serious concern in this case, and the water problem is strictly connected to it. They cannot focus the water problem because they are thinking in something else, the development issue. And they are not talking openly about this.

Continuing with the same article:

"Peter Kirttredge (…) said he doesn’t believe there are any problems with Senanus water. He is suspicious of the motives of the Senanus residents when they asked for water. ‘They want water down there in order to develop it’, said kirttredge. ‘They want that (municipal water) because they are a development lobby’, he said. ‘They are not looking for solutions because they are a development lobby’."

It seems to me very strange, and even offensive, that Peter Kirttredge doesn’t believe that there is a water problem. What did happen with the resident’s stories? They are lying about their situation just to ‘develop’ the area?

Continuing with the same article:

"At very step of the way their local government, the municipality of Central Saanich, has blocked their attempts to get municipal water. The local council even blocked attempts to get potable water piped in when Senanus residents figured out a way to get the job done at zero cost to the municipality."

Here it becomes clear to me that the problem with the extension of the pipeline is not because of the costs; it’s because the association of the extension of the pipeline with the development of the area.

The extension of the pipeline certainly is not the only option they have, but I believe they should at least talk openly about the development issue, since it’s something that they are very concerned about and they are not really looking at this option as an option for the solution of the "water" problem.

Lilian.