Real Issue: development

From my analysis of the transcripts and the newspaper articles, I could notice a strict association between the water issue and concerns about the development of the area. It became clear when I realized that every time someone talked about the extension of pipeline as an option of solution for the water problem in the area, the development issue emerged.

I could distinguished two opposite positions about the development issue in this community, that clearly influence the opinions about the water problem and also about the possible solutions for this problem.

In 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. As Michael Magonnegal said: "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." [Senanus Public Meeting, pages 7-8].

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].

In 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 (HERE WE CAN ADD SOME EXCERPT OR MAKE SOME REFERENCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN TALKING IN THE OTHER ANALYSIS). These people want and need potable water, but they are not necessarily against the maintenance of the rural character of the area; as Frank Towler, Central Saanich resident, 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 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". (Times Colonist 04/20/01). Considering all the life stories told in Senanus Public Meeting, Mr. Kirttredge’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, as I could realize from this excerpt from Times Colonist, 04/20/01: "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".

As Gordon Denford, Central Saanich resident, said, the municipality has acted without ethics, since "Walkerton, Ont., where seven people died and 2.000 fell sick because of contaminated water in May 2000, has shown citizens have a right for clean water, so for the municipality to use clean water as a means of controlling development is indefensible". (Times Colonist, 04/20/01). 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.