Our (post-)modern world becomes increasingly complex, not in the least because of the changes to scientific knowledge and technological artifacts that pervade our lives. Science and technology are deeply enmeshed with personal and public issues (Latour, 1993; Restivo, 1988), particularly those relating to sociotechnical controversies such as mad cow or foot and mouth disease, AIDS, climate change, or the diffusion of genetically modified organisms. It is not surprising that there is an increasing public awareness of the ethical, practical, and political dimensions that characterize the controversies in which science and technology are embroiled. Science and technology, as all other domains that shape public and private life, should therefore become legitimate objects of reflection on the part of all citizens. An important question poses itself, "How do all citizens participate in reflecting on science and technology?" and "What level of scientific and technological literacy do citizens have to bring to be legitimate participants in the public debate?" These questions are particularly salient as there are suggestions about the nonexistence and non-attainability of scientific literacy (Shamos, 1995). Many citizens are said to have "blanks" in their background knowledge and are given lessons to get the right scientific knowledge to make up (Hazen & Trefil, 1991). Others disagree with such assessment, taking a more democratic and emancipatory approach to the contributions different types of knowledge can play to sort the problems that humanity faces today (Jenkins, 1999; McGinn & Roth, 1999). These authors take their cues from activists concerning AIDS (e.g., Epstein, 1996), muscular dystrophy (Rabeharisoa & Callon, 1999), or environment (Lee & Roth, 2001) to show that citizens can legitimately contribute to science and its processes even if they do not have a scientific or technological training.

Democratic ideals, particularly those of consistent with inclusive democracy (Fotopoulos, 1999), imply a greater involvement of the public in policy-making issues that pertain to or involve science and technology. However, today we are still far from an equitable approach where science and other forms of knowledge contribute in situationally appropriate and equitable way to solving problems and controversial issues. The public is often not involved because, so goes the argument, it does not understand the salient issues and concepts or the processes of science. Scientists operating in the spirit of this take "bludgeon publics with 'certain facts,' often ignoring the public's own culturally embedded understandings" (Brown & Michael, 2001, p. 18).

Controversial issues and the role science and technology play in their unfolding are often studied from the perspective of sociologists, anthropologists, or educators interested in science. In the present study, we take a different approach. One of us (Roth) had conducted an ethnographic study surrounding water issues in the community where he lives. He proposed an analysis of the data surrounding one controversy as one of the activities in a advanced course on interpretive inquiry. The diverse mix of participants in this course therefore provided us with the opportunity to analyze the public data on one controversy from the heterogeneous perspectives of an educated but diverse public. The purpose of this article is to articulate our understanding of the controversial issue and to derive implications for lifelong learning that would provide more emancipatory, legitimate (if peripheral) participation in the issues for local participants.

Contested Water

Water is one of the most common substances of the world. It is so common that those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere often do not usually attend to it as something special. At least not until some serious problem arises such as the recent crisis in Walkerton, Ontario, where seven people died as a consequence of E. coli contamination of the drinking water. However, in some parts of the world, such as in rural areas of Africa and in parts of the Caribbean, most people lack access to a safe water supply (United Nations, 2000b).

Water is more than an issue contested in metaphorical way. Titles such as Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East (Bulloch & Darwish, 1993) and La bataille de l'eau au Proche Orient (Chesnot, 1993) point to the fact that now, and even more so in the future, water becomes a battle ground and resource in struggle over nationhood and identity.

The possibilities of water as a contested entity and a general awareness of a looming water crisis around the world is becoming increasingly salient. For example, in Canada, numerous special research chairs on water quality have been created and efforts are under way to establish a national research network ("Reseau-watnet") focusing on drinking water or by cover stories in prestigious periodicals such as Scientific American. It becomes clear that the problems will only increase in the coming years:

It is also becoming clear that drinking water, its quality and quantity will not remain scientific and technological issues. In Canada, the export of drinking water to other nations has entered the political arena as the federal government considers legislation to control (limit, make possible) the sale of bulk water to other nations (Environment Canada, 2001; Shrybman, 1999).

While the debate at the national level about the sale of water to other nations is in its beginning, more than 200 communities experience more or less severe problems with the quantity and quality of their water. Despite the concern of the citizens that are affected, cities, provinces, and federation seem to do little to alleviate the local concerns. At the same time, organizations such as Lifewater International are dedicated to rural villagers to obtain safe water, mainly in developing nations where government-operated water systems are not available (http://www.lifewater.org/help.htm). But what options are there for people and communities in developed nations who, despite the national wealth, do not have access to the necessary quantity and quality of water as their fellow citizens do?

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.

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.

Community View on the Public Debate

In schools, science is (generally) taught as if it and its results were value free. This, as much research in the sociology of science showed (e.g., Latour 1992), is not the case. The citizens in this community in general (e.g., in a case of the application for a high-power microwave emitter) and in this public hearing more specifically realised that scientific and technological testing could not be thought independently of the uses that are being made.

The first part of the public hearing constructed the scientists and engineers present as the 'experts'. Each expert was provided with the opportunity to elaborate key issues in the reports that they had produced, and took the amount of time they deemed necessary. There was no attempt to shorten or curtail any of the presenters–as this would happen in the subsequent parts of the meeting. The experts were constructed as such also by their own and the moderator's description of positions, titles, or degrees they held. Thus, individuals were variously introduced as 'professional engineer and a professional geologist', 'Public Health Engineer serving the regional district', 'Environmental Health Officer for the Oceanside area… [he] has a Masters of Science degree, and has significant experience with water quality issues and he has been involved extensively in both reports in the sampling episodes' or 'Chief Environmental Health Officer for our Health Region'. All of these presenters had considerable time to make their presentations–something that is significant when held against the attempt by the moderator to limit questions and contributions of other participants. The independent consultant Lowen, an engineer and hydro-geologist provided a report in which there was no uncertainty left about his methodology of data collection and the facts that resulted from them.

There were repeated instances where citizens were cut off from talking, while asking questions or making comments in the second part and third parts of the meeting.

In its report to Council, the Water Advisory Task Force discredited all information other than the one provided by the consultant (whose methodology has shown to have flaws during the meeting). The speaker for the majority report, M'Gonigle, reiterated the preference for the "first systematic assessment" of the water.

It is not surprising that many people in the community believe that the community based its decision for not supplying Senanus with water on the report of the consultant, supported by the majority recommendation (4-3 against water main) of the Water Advisory Task Force. Thus, the scientific expertise associated with one report predominated over the weight of the reports from the Regional Health Board, residents, and the data collected by other consultants hired by the residents themselves. Discourses cut up and create the world (Foucault, 1972); they embody and impose particular ways of seeing the world, which in turn are reified as we see in the way the discursive concepts impose on us. Thus, technical reports can be lend credence but opinions and comments are just that. They are constructed here as insufficient to be used as a basis for making decisions. Considerable differences in the way health was viewed, leading to different forms of action considered by the parties involved. The residents and Capital Health Region take a comprehensive view similar to that promoted by the United Nations. The majority of the Water Advisor Task Force, Council, and mayor follow Lowen in a much more narrow definition of health.

Our research in the community, particularly in public meetings, shows that ordinary citizens often feel disenfranchised by scientists who talk in decontextualised ways about the issues at hand, which often deeply affect residents life (presence of a high-power radio emitter, access to water main). In our community, as elsewhere, scientists 'bludgeon publics with "certain facts," often ignoring the public's own culturally embedded understandings: in sum, they practice a rigid body language that quickly alienates and disillusions their lay audiences' (Brown and Michael 2001: 18). This is also the case when it comes to the perspective toward individual and environmental health understood in different ways by scientists and the members of the community. Different views of health have surfaced over the years (Labonte, 1993) including the "medical" and "socio-environmental" approaches. The medical position, which comes from a scientific point of view, considers health as the absence of disease and focuses attention on a disease (breakdown)–treatment (fix it) sequence (Labonte, 1993). In the current controversy, the scientists hold this view.

In the Central Saanich water circumstances, the community meeting was primarily organized by public officials to have the "experts" present their scientific technical reports and to allow residents to "air their personal opinions" and to "talk about the various options that were available." Generally, the scientific reports stressed the fact that the water did not present a danger to residents' physical health. These reports adhered to statutory guidelines, scientific language, and public policy that fit a technical view of health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) sees health as a personal resource that includes social and personal assets as well as physical capacities: the extent to which an individual or group is able to fulfill aspirations, to satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment (Labonte, 1993). This view conceptualizes health in its broadest sense considering many determinants of health and emphasizing that actions to support health go beyond simply dealing with disease-treatment. In the socio-environmental approach, personal experiences of health are phenomenological experiences, constructed through social interactions with others and a shared repertoire of intersubjective meanings (Labonte, 1993). To achieve this vision of health, we must explore and understand how peoples' experiences of health relate to their experiences of capacity and connectedness.

In the second half of the meeting, many people made strong and at time emotional comments about a wide range of issues and about their experiences living without reasonable quantity and quality of the water. The residents spoke about health from a socio-environmental perspective. They talked about daily experiences including: financial costs, physical health, personal hygiene, safety issues, lack of social and personal enjoyment of their homes, and the emotional toll of insufficient quality and quantity of water. Based upon the WHO's definition of health, the quantity and quality of well water available to residents of Senanus Drive had many unpleasant effects on the residents' health.

Throughout the public meeting, we noted not only the discrediting of local knowledge and the testing results by the Capital Regional Health but also a lack of concern for the views of others.

The Senanus Drive water issue is not only an issue of quality/quantity of water or merely an issue of whether or not the pipeline should be extended. The larger issue in my assessment is related to quality of life for residents who must deal with such basic needs as a supply of good water.

For some 30 years residents have been expressing their concern to council over the water issue. What seems clear from an outsider's point of view is their issues, coping strategies and ongoing concerns of health issues due to the quality of water have not been truly "heard" by Council. By means of letters signed by the president of the Central Saanich West Voters Association, the Senanus Drive residents have repeatedly expressed concerns to Council regarding the quantity and quality of their water issues. Yet in their responses, Council and the WATF have been without regard for the emotional and physical toil created. Residents continued to communicate the stresses resulting from the ongoing debate about health risks and temporary solutions, personal costs in terms of time and energy needed to find alternatives while the issue is being debated, monetary outlay to replace equipment and appliances due to corrosion, lack of ability to utilize their land productively through growing plants/gardens, ongoing concern of the potential for health issues, and the ongoing stress created by a lack of resolution of the issue.

Council has responded to resident concerns in the form of "scientific" data that there are no health concerns created by the poor quality of water, and that, "you knew this stuff and you still moved there." Replies such as these only serve to further feelings of frustration of concerns not being "heard" by Council. As one resident explained, "it's driving me crazy. It just absolutely disrupts your life." Such an example also illustrates the effects on residents' quality of life. Maintaining a balanced life requires that one is able to resolve problems that create stress. It is a well-known fact that unresolved stress alone can lead to illness. What price must these residents pay for their decision to live on Senanus Drive? The stress of this ongoing issue and consequences is taking its toll on the residents' ability to experience a good quality of life necessary to maintain health and well being.

Residents are attempting to have their concerns "heard" and in examining Council's argument they are silenced. Council elevated the "scientific" point of view as more important than the actual concrete examples of the effects of the water on residents' quality of life. During the meeting, residents' input were actively suppressed by the moderator of the meeting. Time and again, he stopped residents speaking and commented, "I was hoping not to get into picking things apart … I would prefer not to do that," "I don't want to … get into a slugfest over particular pieces of the report," and "I don't want to get into a detailed bit by bit tearing something apart." If council were truly "hearing" individual concerns presented by residents and if residents had the "feeling" that council had understanding of their concerns, I wonder, how would this change the direction of the present dilemma? And if those residents had the "feeling" council understood the enormous impact this issue has had on their quality of life for over 30 years, how would this understanding contribute to the residents' perception of a change to their quality of life?

It is therefore not surprising our analysis reveals a sense that input of evidence particularly by the residents was actively discouraged. This sense reflects that of those residents who periodically feature in the local newspapers where they talk about the lack of success in coming to a resolution over the conflict.

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. 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 questions asked of the residents by visiting scientists and the audience. The issues brought forward by the residents, who are experiencing 'first hand' the effects of non-potable water and inadequate water supply, provide important contextual information regarding history of the area's water supply and development.

Further review of the Senanus Public meeting transcript indicates that decisions by council are lacking in response to recommendations from the Minority Report and Capital Health Region, the Residents' Association requests, and the reports made by 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, reviewed by Michael M'Gonigle, Chairman of the Water Advisory Task Force, 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…. 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. Lowen's assessment." As noted in the transcript, this recommendation has been carried out and findings presented at the public meeting.

Michael M'Gonigle (MM) also notes, "Our suggestion, our conclusions in the final report and recommendations to Council are as follows. "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…. Second it is anticipated that this will solve the Senanus water issue in possibly every case…. Mr. Lowen has said, to 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." (MM) mentions that this will be discussed after 9:00. Movement on this issue during this evening's meeting would be an immediate response to the Majority Report's recommendations.

Rick Reeves, speaking on behalf of the Minority Report noted, "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." The pipeline extension as recommended here has received no further action from Council other than to seek information regarding alternative solutions.

The Residents' Association recommendations, as reported by John Damguard, "have been working long and hard with presentation after presentation to Council, asking 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." Mr. Damguard says, "We have so many reports…. We're just asking for the opportunity to apply to powers that be in the various governments for assistance." The requests for city water supply and the opportunity to apply for assistance seem to have been muted by Council's lack of response.

The Majority Report's recommendations have received action and support by Council while the Minority Report and Residents' Association recommendations and requests, and the residents' testimonials have not. Decisions made so far and action taken has not resulted in getting closer to a solution. There are continued recommendations to seek further information. This issue has been going on for as long as "20 years" as stated by John Damguard and 30 years for Gladys Stanley Jones who states, "…. the amount of water has decreased over the 30 years and the quantity has deteriorated and I think the time, this, 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." It is apparent that the lack of response and action by Council over the years indicates that their input is undesired.

Currently the Capital Regional District, "passed a motion that requested Dr. Richard Stanwick, Medical Health Officer of the Capital Health Region, to review all reports on the Senanus water quality issue, and provide a decision as to what the extent of the health hazard is." Lavin, L. (2001, June ). Hunter blasted over CRD vote. News, pg No. . In view of what I noticed in the meeting transcripts regarding lack of regard for residents' input, I wonder if the residents' testimonials will be included with all other reports for Dr. Richard Stanwick's review? Will the ongoing discussion include updates and input from the people who are continually experiencing the immediate consequences of lack of water quality and supply? Will the impact of living in these conditions be considered for decision-making and action? Will the Minority Report, Residents' association, and residents' accounts be used as valuable information regarding the water issue for Senanus and Mt. Newton Crossroad water situation and the Central Saanich community water issue? Will the solution develop out of a consensus by the community for the community?

Our analysis of the meeting transcripts and newspaper articles suggests that there is a close association between the water issue and concerns about the development of the area. Every time someone talks about the extension of pipeline as an option of solution for the water problem in the area, the development issue emerged. Two opposite positions about the development issue in this community can be distinguished. These influence the different opinions about the water problem and the possible resolutions.

On one side, there are the Council members, some members of the Water Advisory Task Force ("majority" group), and some residents, grounded in the Official Community Plan, which states that the Senanus Drive area cannot be developed. They insist that residents should know, when they choose to live there, that they are not supposed to have potable water. Thus, the speaker for the WATF Majority report suggested:

Mayor Wayne Hunter also referred to this issue, addressing more clearly the water services in the area, "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" (Times Colonist 04/20/01). Thus, although there was no written policy to keep the water away (report to Council by engineer), the enacted policy was to prevent any development by keeping city water away from Senanus Drive.

On the other side, there are some other members of the Water Advisory Task Force ("minority" group) and many residents of the area, who has been living there since this issue started, 30 years ago. These people told their life stories to confirm the existence of quality and quantity water problems in this area, and they seem to be very tired to wait for a solution for these problems. These people want and need potable water, but they are not necessarily against the maintenance of the rural character of the area. Thus, Frank Towler, resident of the area and president of the Central Saanich West Voters' Association said, "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" [Senanus Public Meeting, page 32].

Different reports were prepared, presenting some "scientific results" addressing the water problems, but they were not sufficient to help to solve the problem or, at least, to help people to come to a resolution. The Water Advisory Task Force presented two different reports, with, in some way, opposite conclusions and recommendations; the majority report, presented by the "anti-development' group, make evident (1) that the extension of pipeline is not the right solution for the water problem, and (2) their position as "anti-developers". On the other hand, the minority report, presented by Rick Reeve and two other former members of the WATF, clearly consider the extension of the pipeline the "only" viable solution for the water problem. This report, as Rick Reeve said, was based in "testimonial evidence directly from the residents".

The "anti-development" group, because they don't want development in the area, doesn't accept the extension of the pipeline as an option of solution for the water problem, and some of them really don't believe there is a water problem at all; as Peter Kittredge 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 Kittredge. '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". (Times Colonist 04/20/01). Considering all the life stories told in Senanus Public Meeting, Mr. Kittredge's statement can be taken, at least, as offensive.

One can think that these people don't consider the extension of the pipeline because of the costs, estimated in $850,000 dollars. But this is really not the issue:

In the view of some, the municipality acted without ethics, since in

Besides, there are many other ways to avoid development, without deprive people from potable water. And actually the residents talked about it: "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." [Damguard, in Senanus Public Meeting, page 21]; "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." [ Byer, in Senanus Public Meeting, page 25]; "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. As well, drinking water is not the municipal service that makes high-density development possible." [Denford, in Times Colonist, 04/20/01].

The extension of the pipeline certainly is not the only option they have, but 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 the extension of the pipeline as an option for the solution of the water problem, because they associate it with development. Just one question: since the cost is not the issue, why don't seriously consider the extension of the pipeline? If the answer is "development", so I've made my point here.

Discussions and Implications

"Scientific literacy" for all citizens is a favorite banner of current reform agendas (AAAS, 1989). However, what it usually means is knowing concepts in the way scientists do independent of the social contexts in which these concepts may be relevant (Rodriguez, 1997). However, knowing science in the way it is portrayed in science textbook does not appear to be the issue. Some of the residents who speak out in this controversy know science, the concentration levels of certain metals, and the reactions that make these metals (e.g., chromium) in the presence of other substances (e.g., chlorine from water treatment) dangerous, though not dangerous if they appear alone. Thus, a considerable part of the Senanus Drive residents are scientifically informed and enhance their knowledge and understanding by hiring consultants and perusing the reports of others. The real issue seems to be one of managing the relations with scientists in the course over a controversy.

In this study, as in others (Brown & Michael, 2001), the scientists and their allies use a limited discursive genre to outplay the discourses and experiences of those whose lives are directly affected by the quantity and quality of water. It may be that concentrations of certain metals are only "aesthetic objectives" that do not affect health. But to those who have to live on a daily basis with corroding pipes, dying plants, scales left by soap on their skin, and undrinkable water, overstepping "aesthetic objectives" seriously diminishes the quality of life.

What, then, ought (science) educators do to ready children and students for their participation in community life? One goal for (science) educators to achieve would therefore not be the inculcation of a limited discursive repertoire at the expense of other repertoires but an introduction into the ways in which controversies unfold and how individual citizens and groups can participate in legitimate (peripheral) ways. Such participation does not have to await the completion of one or more science courses. Rather, as an ongoing research program shows, seventh-grade students can contribute to the construction of their community's knowledge about the environmental health of their watershed (Roth & Lee, 2001a, 2001b). They not only learn science and scientific discourse, but they do by contributing to the collective concerns about the lifeworld that each member of the community inhabits. The students are then already on a trajectory of participating in the ongoing debates about community, environmental, and personal health. There is no reason why individuals could not embark on such a trajectory at any point in their life. A question for educators would be how they can contribute to facilitate embarkation and support the trajectories that emerge.

There is no doubt that such a shift in educational thought has socio-political consequences (e.g., Roth and Désautels, 2001). When an eight-grade student begins to monitor coliform levels in a local creek and report (in an open-house event organized by community activists) high increases just below certain farms, he actively contributes to bringing to awareness of everyone those who actively contribute to pollution (Roth & Lee, 2001b). When eleventh-grade students conduct chemical analyses in a major river, source the pollutants, and publish the results of their inquiries, they clearly engage in political acts. In any event, by participating in and contributing to ongoing debates and controversies, these students learn and ready themselves for other controversies. As there is little support for the transfer of knowledge between situations (Lave, 1988), learning to participate in controversy by participating possibly the best option we have for preparing future generations. They do not have to end up feeling like losers in an inequitable contest over resources, fought by winners under the banner of science.

The Senanus Road water dispute is not unlike any controversial issue where there is a competition for resources and where personal beliefs and values are threatened. A basic issue of those who have and those who have not got the same quality, quantity and access to the supply of water creates a predictable situation of polarized viewpoints. No one viewpoint is more valid than another's viewpoint. No one argument is more conclusive or closer to a solution than another's argument. Neither the scientific data nor the personal accounts carry more weight than the other. But, when personal beliefs, values, limited resources and special interests are threatened, it is a basic human response to polarize our viewpoints to protect and defend that position to the end.

What then is the "end" to the Senanus Road water issue? For a Victoria resident who lives outside of this particular community I will have to be patient to see how they resolve their differences. In the meantime I can learn something from their experience. I am not completely uninvolved in the water issue. We all live on Vancouver Island, and all obtain our water from the same reservoir which ultimately comes from the Sooke Hills. While I am not specifically involved in the Senanus Road quandary, I am restricted from unlimited access to water during the stage 3 water restriction. While I do not have the extreme lack of quality issue to my drinking water, I do have health concerns regarding the chlorine in the water , water being shuttled via old pipes and should the level of the reservoir be further depleted over the summer, a concern of water quality looms.

As a larger community, and I am referring to the island, we are all implicated in the water issue of Senanus Road. But, because as yet we have only had to make minor adjustments to our life, and our quality of life is not yet threatened, the issue remains "their problem." At the point where we our beliefs and values feel threatened, we too will have an issue that we will defend in our own community.

During our attempt to understand the Senanus Road issue, it becomes evident that the issue of quality and quantity of water has become, in recent years, not only an individual or community issue but rather a global issue. No longer can anyone deny that he/she is not involved. We are all implicated simply by being members of the planet. We all depend on water as a basic requirement for life. Therefore, we all need to consider what part each of us play in doing our best to prevent a worsening issue of quality and quantity in our own area and globally. This requires a consciousness toward the present individual beliefs, values, and practices we currently hold on this precious and finite resource.

The Senanus Road issue exemplifies the need to be conscious of the impact of careful planning of our water resource. Their example gives us an historical account of how growth and development impacts on our water resource. It drives home the importance of planning in every other community. We each must examine our guiding and ethical principles that direct us in the use of our resources, keeping in mind that all resources are finite, as the Senanus Road dilemma illustrates. We are all, at all times, implicated and responsible for protecting our resources.

How then does the experience of looking at the Senanus Road issue affect the future?

Whether it is individual, in a family, in a community, we all need to recognize the need to be heard and to hear concerns expressed by one another. Within the health care setting where I work, nurses are in a position to be educators, advocates and a support to patients in a variety of situations. What is so necessary is to give value to the other's opinion regardless of whether it matches my own or not. We are all a part of a global picture. We are all interconnected. Therefore, we must strive at all times, to "see" a situation through one another's lens to understand one another. The situation with the Senanus Road residents clearly illustrates that when our beliefs and values are threatened, no resolution to a problem is possible. The Senanus Drive water issue is an example of people feeling unheard and what results from such a situation.

What does giving value and understanding really look like? As a nurse I come upon this situation daily. I have the opportunity to be the one "who knows" or to be a support. I have experienced the result of wearing each one of these hats. The one "who knows" only knows from a generalized viewpoint who may quickly categorize and recommend in relation to the population. This approach is not likely to give the patient the impression he is individual and valued as so. The one who supports is not "in charge," values the individual differences and subjectivity, recognizes that the patient comes with a diverse history and experience and restrains from imposing the norms on the patients' decision. To recognize one another's opinions, needs and experience as valuable, we must listen to another, have compassion and empathy for this experience. While the Senanus Road issue is not directly our own problem today, should we be faced with a problem in the future which threatens our survival we want consideration as those residents should be entitled to now.

Therefore, we have a responsibility as agents of change, to be examples for one another on how to listen and respect one another's' opinion, so that we may move from the problem stage to the solution stage.

This issue is of interest to the larger community of residents of Vancouver Island because it demonstrates how the conflict between urban and rural development can find itself played out over the issue of a limited resource on the island; fresh water. The Senanus Drive residents feel that they have the right to safe and plentiful water. They perceive that the most efficient and cost effective way for this to happen for them is to have a pipeline extended to their area. The community members who oppose the extension of the pipeline claim that there are alternatives to extending the pipe line that haven't been fully examined. This group is also very anti urban encroachment in the area, so they see any extension of water pipelines as an invitation for the local residents to subdivide their large properties, thereby increasing the population density in the area. The solution to this problem must involve a decision-making process in the community that is perceived as being fair, and the clear identification of the development goals of the area. Once development guidelines have been put in place, the water problems will be able to be addressed as just that. It is clear that the community and its elected council needs to address the issue of the quantity and quality of the water for the residents of Senanus Drive, but the present context of political wrangling is not going to lead to a solution that satisfies either of the groups. It seems that there indeed needs to be a process to resolve this issue that is satisfactory to all participants in the discussion. This will probably involve the identification of a development plan that is seen to be strong enough to withstand pressure of future councils to bow to the will of developers. There also needs to be a thorough investigation of the situation on Senanus, including the identification of possible individual solutions for those properties. From a community safety standpoint, the question of fire safety needs to be addressed; in addition, the issue of water management in a larger context needs to be investigated. This should include a discussion of recovery of waste water and sewage disposal in the area. However, as we have seen in the data we collected, the members of the community will closely scrutinize any scientific data. The data presented to form the basis for a final decision must include data collected from all experts in the area — scientists, water management consultants, and residents who live with the problem and residents who may have to share the cost of the solution.

The larger study (conducted by Roth) within which our work here is situated shows that what there is a relationship between the well water and the aquifer that feeds Hagen Creek. It is in the interests of the community residents who are seeking to restore the creek, to find ways to manage water in the area, so that the aquifer is protected. In the larger Victoria area, it is in the interests of the community to minimize the use of water from the Sooke Reservoir, which will provide only with some difficulty adequate safe water to all the residents on the southern part of Vancouver Island, including the Saanich Peninsula. There are increasing numbers of communities in other areas of Canada, who are becoming aware of the fragile nature of a resource that up to now has been seen as unending. The issue of the provision of water to some 30 residents in a rural area of the Saanich Peninsula, has far reaching implications; it is one more in a recent series of events that points up our need to become much more aware of how we use the precious resource of water.

References

Bios

Wolff-Michael Roth is Lansdowne Professor of Applied Cognitive Science at the University of Victoria. He conducts interdisciplinary research on knowing and learning in science, technology, and mathematics from elementary school to professional practice. His recent books include "Designing Communities" (Kluwer), "Re/constructing Elementary Science" (with Tobin and Ritchie) and "At the Elbow of Another: Learning to Teach by Coteaching" (with Tobin) (Peter Lang), and "Being and Becoming in the Classroom" (Greenwood).

Robin McMillan is a 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, and a graduate student in nursing at the University of Victoria. Her research is concerned with the relationship between home care workers and their patients.

Brenda Storr is a department head of ESL at Camosun College and a graduate student in Curriculum Studies at the University of Victoria. Her research concerns

Donna Tait is a practicing nurse and a graduate student in education at the University of Victoria. She is an R.N. whose research and practice focus revolve around issues of illness prevention and health promotion from a holistic viewpoint.

Janet Riecken is a graduate student in Curriculum Studies at the University of Victoria, BC. 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.

Gail Bradshaw is an artist and a graduate student in Curriculum Studies at the University of Victoria searching for a way to use language and art to combine her passion for the environment with her interest in a comparative study of Chinese and Western cultures and approaches to learning.

Lilian Leivas Pozzer is a graduate student in Curriculum Studies at the University of Victoria. Her research focuses on representation practices in science textbooks.