Situating the Water Problem

The controversy over water 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.

During many summers, insufficient water supply requires the community to limit the amount available to residents. As we are writing this article, winter has seen less than 60% of normal rainfall so that the community is in water restriction Stage 3–lawn sprinklers are forbidden and only handwatering of plants and vegetable gardens is allowed.

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 have 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 years, the residents of Senanus Drive demanded to be connected to the water main that supplies other residents of Central Saanich. However, town council and mayor have blocked all demands, attempting to keep the water main away from Senanus Drive to prevent the area from being developed (Times Colonist, 2001, p. A1).

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.

To have an appropriate mechanism to deal with the pressing water problems, the community formed the Water Advisory Task Force. Its seven members include a diverse group of residents. Michael M’Gonigle (eco-law professor, resident), Eddie Carmack (physical oceanographer and resident, and Jim Sandwith (farmer, resident) wrote the grants that led to the establishment of the Hagan Creek~KENNES Watershed Project. Rick Reeves,

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 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 (supported by M’Gonigle, Carmack, Garner, and Kittrich) largely based its recommendations on the data provided by Lowen Hydrogeology Consulting. The minority report (supported by Reeves, Sandwith, & ) 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.

A large part of the report by Von Bishop, Senior Engineering Technologist for Central Saanich, 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.

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.

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. 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 of new developments of the issue as these played themselves out in the local newspapers while we conducted this analysis.

We recorded most of 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. He is a trained scientist (M.Sc. physics), who had taught science in middle and high schools for more than a decade, and conducted research for another decade on learning science and scientific literacy from elementary school to university levels and among scientists.

Wolff-Michael Roth is a resident of Central Saanich and has conducted research in the area (schools, activism) for the past four years. His professional and personal interests are the relationship of citizens and science (or scientists), and in promoting citizenship among middle school students through their contributions to the community by conducting environmental and ecological studies in Hagan Creek and the watershed (e.g., Roth & Lee, 2001). Covering almost all his entire vegetable needs from his organic garden, the limited water supply to the community has become a daily concern. Donna Tait is a native born Victorian. She is an R.N. whose focus both personally and professionally revolves around issues of illness prevention and health promotion from a holistic viewpoint. As a health professional she is acutely interested in the effects of personal, community and global health issues and the impact of these issues in mobilizing internal strength in the healing process. She is currently provides community-based nursing care and, in an acute care setting, assists clients to live with ostomy. Robin McMillan 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. She views health as a personal resource that includes social and personal assets, as well as physical capacities. In her professional practice and personal life, she strives to respect the beliefs and values inherent in health promotion.

((One or two sentence statements of each author.))

Because of our backgrounds, we bring to the analyses quite divergent interpretive horizons. ((Write a bit on how our background and experience influenced the interpretations we made.))