Numerous professional reports state there is no health concern - only easily and economically treatable aesthetic issues (hardness). However, Key reports were NOT included in the District of Central Saanich's Grant C-BC-MRIF #17304 Grant Application:

• "Dr. Stanwick advised that the water did not contain any elements, under the 6th Edition Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines, that would pose a significant risk to health" (Report to CRD Board after reviewing all available reports.)
  
  
• CMHO Dr. Stanwick reported on the health of the water - solutions for any aesthetic issues noted were not within the scope of his review: "treatment in itself poses some logistic issues which were not addressed in the report."
  
  
• "There is no health concern" Murray Sexton, Regional Public Health Engineer. This report corrects an earlier report which the District stated was "found wanting" for both "methodology and substance."
  This corrective report was NOT included in the District's c-bc-mrif grant application.
  
  

• "There are no health concerns indicated for the Senanus Peninsula Aquifer"
  Lowen Hydrogeology Consulting.
  
  
• “effects of these [palatability parameters] can be readily counter-acted by in-home treatment systems”
  Lowen Hydrogeology Consulting.
  
  
• “Senanus water in relation to limits for parameters listed in the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines for acceptable potable water quality: Main conclusions: during summer, some wells may not meet the CDWQG for a range of aesthetic parameters; six wells had high sodium concentration which can represent a problem for those on sodium-restricted diets; plumbing was suspected in the few cases where higher copper levels were found; and concentrations were not sufficiently high to warrant concern.”
  
  
• “The most common water treatment technology used in BC is ion exchange for water softening (reducing hardness). These units range in capacity, and costs depend on a number of parameters, such as volume treated per day and TDS of the input waters."
  Piteau Report
  
  
• “Claims by some residents that the water posed a health risk to their babies and claims that families could not drink or bath in the water were not supportable, given the ready availability of effective in-house treatment solutions."… "Thus the Lowen Report reduced any water problems in the Senanus issue to an issue of water quantity alone”
  
  

• The District included an erroneous report by Sexton it had earlier stated it "found wanting" for both "methodology and substance."
  
  
• The Giles report, commissioned by and quoted often by CSWVA Senanus residents, was found by the District's own task force, as stated below, to be problematic in its methodology and results.
  Despite these flaws, the District included this report in its C-BC-MRIF application.

  "As with any serious report, but especially with a report provided by advocates in a contentious political issue, independent peer review is essential to good decision-making." "Vested economic interests (i.e. development) will do what is needed to move ahead. Social costs and benefits are not their concern." "This attitude often reflects the information that is presented. In the case of Senanus, it should be noted that the Giles report was commissioned by a few residents in the context of the Council's own attempt to conduct a full -- and independent -- study of the nature of all residents' purported problems, and potential solutions. In addition, despite the federal government's interest in contributing substantial monies to study an innovative - and potentially very workable solution (community cistern), the proponents of the waterline directly intervened with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to oppose the Council's initiative to secure such funding."

• When the District Administrator was asked during a meeting about the Grant Application why reports containing errors were included with the District's application, while corrective reports were not, his answer was: "The District had to create an application that had the best chance of resulting in a Grant." In attendance at this meeting were: Nirmal Bhattacharya, Gary Nason, Ken Pleasance (District Consultant who wrote the application), Lori Waters, Chris Paynter, and Carole Carmack.