Transcripts of public meeting held about water problem on Senanus Drive

Theme: Values
  1. Value of Process: Detailed explanation by V. of agenda and preparation for meeting.
    1. Specific reports that are available in printed form
    2. Identification of people who are ‘experts’ who will address the meeting
    3. Council process in appointing the Water Advisory Task Force
    4. ‘New information’ is encouraged in the public participation section
    5. time
    6. McGonnigal’s explanation of the role of the Task Force, and its guiding principles (7)
    7. VB cuts off R’s attempt to raise a side issue of conflict of interest
    8. (17) Loen’s report is one piece of the information
    9. moderator keeps bringing the discussion back to technical questions; then at 9:30 invites public comments
  2. Value of quantity and quality of water in the long term —
    1. expressed by RB — Capital Regional Health. Acknowledges the scientific data, identifies some contradictions between original study and Loen study but questions whether or not that will provide a long term solution. Says that issues of quality have been addressed in terms of safety, but sums up with a statement that quality and quantity have not been addressed in the long term.
    2. McGonnigals statements about the role of the Task Force — long term solution o\for the region
    3. Minority report addresses testimonials about quantity of water
    4. Fire safety raised by minority report
    5. 20 year problem needs to be solved (Damguard 21)
    6. Tallis — community members have a right to a long term solution to the water problems
    7. Van Treight — residents of the area have a right to proper water
  3. Value of Scientific Process
  1. Promulgation of Public Health and Safety —

    2. summary statement by RB. — refers to quality and quantity of water

    fire safety

    RB identified the best long term solution, but didn’t refer to the cost (18)

    Tallis — Council ignores this recommendation

    Fire hazard — gives examples of two fires in the area — (24)

    RB is independent; - water is a public safety issue

  2. Aesthetic Concerns

    3. Raised by Loen ( 5), but dismissed as being able to be solved by individual solutions (refuted by minority report)

    Tallis

    (23) can’t wash clothes in the water; can’t have a garden (repeated)- bath water leaves a scale on skin

  3. Urban / Rural Development issue

    4. McGonigal introduces this idea — people knew what they were

    buying

    Area has seen intrusion of urban areas, and wishes to stop this

    Must seek ‘Smart Solutions’ to resource problems; don’t just jump at what we know

    Need to provide infrastructure in a way that doesn’t invite development and change of the area ( reference to Trader Vic and sewers)

    Damguard21) council still controls development

    Rural area needs water for agriculture - make the pipe bigger

  4. Cost effectiveness

    5. McGonnigal raises this as a guiding principle for the Water Task Force

    To impose an expensive solution for many is not cost effective when the problem exists only for a few.

    Community cistern costs the same as pipeline

    RB states that his report identified a number of solutions, including the one it thought was best — but didn’t consider the cost

    Residents will assume the cost ( Damguard)

    Cost effective for residents (Tallis)

    Insurance costs will go down

    Replacement costs will disappear

  5. Testimonial Reports ( qualitative research)
    1. Minority report valued testimonial reports
    2. Damguard’s comments — length of time the dispute has been going on; conflicting role of Council; wants the same rights as other taxpayers in the area
    3. Tallis
    4. (23) —no name — fire hazard; quality of life issues
    5. Byer — he has a right to clean air and water — description of killing plants; corrosiveness in pipes; fire hazard; not development issue; quantity not sufficient for two people
    6. Jones: - lead content of water clogs sprinkler systems; deterioration over time; other newer areas have water supply; descriptions of how water is conserved; Council should at least not block their application for assistance.
    7. Bolt and Arts Martin — a two thirds majority would mean that everyone has to participate — even those that don’t need or want the system ( Mt. Newton Folks)
    8. Fire hazard exists in another area, but those residents aren’t complaining
    9. Naught — poor quality, health hazard; quantity; high insurance cost; high cost of replacement parts; water is a world issue; democracy accepts the fact that everyone pays to support needs of population 9School); much scientific descriptions of chemicals and hazards
  6. Choice

Residents choose to pay for the option they prefer - minority report

Damguard’s report

Claim: The data collected at the meeting reflected a number of community values. Some participants demonstrated a value attached to the quality and quantity of water which they feel should be available to them in their homes. Another value was the issue of cost effective solutions to the problem. This value was espoused by participants who supported a variety of solutions to the problem. An additional value expressed was the preservation of the rural nature of the community.

 

Data:
    1. quantity and quality of water:

      2. This was expressed as a scientific/technical statement by RB in the recommendation of the Capital Regional District.

      There were a number of qualitative statements made by the residents about the lack of quality and quantity of water in their homes, and the impacts that this situation had on their daily lives.

      This value was also stated in terms of basic human rights. The statement was made that Third World countries had more attention paid to the availability of water in their communities. In addition, it was stated that it is the God given right of residents of Vancouver Island to have clean air and water.

      The value was also stated as a health and safety issue by both RB and the residents who spoke mentioning possible health hazards of drinking the water, and also the risk of fire damage, since there was insufficient water to put out a fire.

    2. Cost Effective solutions
      • Majority report felt that individual solutions would be more cost effective
      • Residents felt that the water pipe solution was more cost effective because it would end their on going expenses as well as lower their insurance
      • Argument was made that residents would have to pay even if they didn’t like or want the solution; this was countered by statement that that’s the way schools are paid for.
      1. Preservation of the rural nature of the area