- C-BC-MRIF-17304-scoringHealth
- "This is not consistent with the rating given in 2002 when this project was first applied for by the Central Saanich West Voters Association for application #596. The score given at that time was 7, as it was believed that public health had not been identified as a risk and that there was not sufficient supporting evidence to identify such risks and the rate of well failure."
- ** note that the District's application states that this project has never been the subject of a Federal or Provincial Grant application, despite the fact that it has:
- already been the subject of an earlier application (mentioned above) under this same program, and,
- already been the subject of an FCM GMEF program grant application, which was blocked by the CSWVA, who applied earlier under the C-BC-MRIF program, but were refused because public health risk has never been adequately demonstrated.
- The District submitted the Bradbury Report from March 1999 as part of its application. The District noted this about the report:
- "In 1999, your staff representative, Mr. Bradbury, submitted a report on this issue, a report that has been widely quoted since. In it, he drew conclusions about water quality based on samples taken by individual residents from their taps. This methodology was later reviewed and found wanting. As a result, a subsequent study was undertaken by an independent hydrogeologist, Mr. Loewen, using a different methodology that took samples from the aquifer at the wellhead. A committee composed of Mr. Bradbury, a representative from Senanus Drive, and a representative of Council’s Water Advisory Task Force supervised Mr. Loewen. Before embarking on your new testing regimen, we would ask that you review both the methodology and substance of Mr. Loewen’s report and discuss your testing plans with Central Saanich staff."
- Subsequently, a corrective report was issued in response, in July of 1999. This corrective report, (which concludes there is no health concern, and issues can be treated with point-of-entry systems) was not included in the District's C-BC-MRIF Grant application.
The province was supplied a report detailing information that the District did not include.
- C-BC-MRIF-17304-notesOverconsume-Development
- Notes in margin: "Overconsumption", and, "Will this lead to further development of agricultural lots in the area?"
- C-BC-MRIF-17304UrbanGrowthWorksheet
- Central Saanich application score: 5/10.
- C-BC-MRIF-17304UrbanGrowthWorksheet2
- "Reasons for not awarding bonus points for the planning context:
- the purpose of this project is to extend a water main into a rural residential area of Central Saanich - an area that includes or is in the vicinity of ALR land and not part of the designated residential settlement areas in the District's OCP.
- The areas to be served with water is also not within the regional urban containment and servicing policy area of the CRD's Regional Growth Strategy.
- The purpose of this policy is to restrict the provision of urban water/sewer services into rural areas to prevent further development (urban sprawl).
- Exceptions can be made for pressing human or environmental health regions, or to service agricultural land (see page 7 of the RGS).
- Central Saanich's own regional context statement in their OCP states "The District does not extend services such as the sewer and water system into rural or agricultural areas." (Page 80)
- There is some evidence of water quality / quantity issues in the area to be serviced by the new water main but it is unclear as to whether or not this could be characterized as a "pressing public health issue" as stipulated in the RGS. Further discussion would be needed with the District and the Regional District on this issue."
- "Reasons for not awarding bonus points for the planning context:
- C-BC-MRIF-BriefingBookSummaryReport-EA: "Approval of project 17304 is conditional on completion of an environmental assessment."
- 2008-03-Let-YvanSylvestreCS-BullockBaur-GetAwayWithIt
The District was required to send a "succinct water conservation plan" to the Municipal Engineering Services Branch, Ministry of Community Services, "based on Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Water Conservation Guidelines." The District was "trying to get the scope reduced" but was "not optimistic" that they would "get away with it" - C-BC-MRIF-EAD1
- C-BC-MRIF-EAD2
- "Meaningful consultation with First Nations that may have an interest in the project is a key requirement of the environmental assessment overview process. It is advisable to identify the local First Nation(s) and initiate an on-going dialogue on the project at an early stage in completing the EAD. Drawings included with your application suggest that the project is in the vicinity of the Tsartlip First Nation / South Saanich Indian Reserve. Although the actual works are not located within First Nations lands, it is important to ensure that the project will not have any impact on heritage resources or use of land / resources for traditional purposes by the First Nation. In this context, it is recommended that Central Saanich contact Tsartlip Nation at the earliest to discuss the proposed works. It is also recommended that you identify any other First Nations that may have an interest in your project."
- C-BC-MRIF-EAD5
- Note: Heritage resources, Archaeological Sites, vegetation, etc. were not noted on Central Saanich's application.
- C-BC-MRIF-17304-project-plan-dates
Note: Provincial documents supplied, such as those above, make it clear that problems cited with the District's grant application by MNNA were also noted by government reviewers. However policy pages have been redacted under the FOIPP Act, so policy determinations demonstrating why this grant was granted are not currently available.
DCS Applied for and received a C-BC-MRIF Grant # 17304, for the Senanus Watermain Project. Selected important points regarding errors and inaccuracies in the DCS application are outlined below. Many others exist.
A District memo shows the District DCS knew that in order to be successful in its application, public health would need to be emphasized. A 1999 District memo points out that at that time, the District did not think it would be successful as there was not a demonstrated need for health protection, and therefore the District's request would appear in lower rankings on the grant priority matrix.
The District's project (Senanus Water Main) does not meet basic Grant Eligibility Criteria:
- DCS States in Section II of its application that this project is priority #1
for the government.
- The application covering letter states: "The Project is not currently on the Districts Five Year Financial Program."
- DCS answered incorrectly that a resolution had been passed in support of the project.
- Two petitions of the Local Service Area (2000, and 2007/08) have not resulted in Project Authorization or Local Service Area Bylaws.
- Two earlier motions [ 1 | 2 ]were also passed based on the petition from 2000, not to proceed with the project on the basis of the 2000 petition.
- As of January 2009, No resolution ByLaws have been passed.
- The District applied for the Grant on the basis of the 2000 petition, despite these facts:
- the District has destroyed the records for the 2000 petition
- The 2000 petition:
- was valid under the Municipal Act - a law which no longer applies in British Columbia.
- LSA catchment has changed since the 2000 petition:
- Schedule of homeowners is not representative of project as currently proposed
- Significantly different property values and ownership
- Costs are not representative of project as currently proposed as required by Community Charter for legal petition.
- In 2007, the District was repetitioned. The Petition was certified in April, 2008. The recent petition process, like the first one in 2000, was fraught with difficulties:
- The District subsequently received legal advice from the municipal solicitor that the 2008 petition “does not likely comply with the requirements of the Community Charter” and would therefore fail if challenged under the Judicial Review Act, due to anomalies and errors with the petition and process:
- The catchment was incorrectly represented on the Schedule of properties: properties were missing.
- Some property owners within the catchment who were not included on the schedule of properties therefore did not receive any notice whatsoever of the petition.
- Petitions sent to property owners were incomplete. Two important attachments defining the project were not included.
- Complaints were received by DCS that information distributed by petitioners was false and misleading, as the Petitioners made false statements about the project.
- Following certification of the petition, the District received written requests from some citizens who signed the petition, indicating they had been misled, no longer supported the project, and wished to have their signatures removed. Signatures garnered under false pretenses are not valid.
- Since the Administrator's memo, numerous citizens have publicly withdrawn their support:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 . MNNA does not accept the validity of the petition, which was procedurally flawed. According to the District's Solicitor may not pass a Review under the Judicial Review Act.
- Based on these difficulties, on May 14, 2008, the Municipal Administrator recommended that Council not proceed with the Bylaws to advance the watermain project.
- No Local Service Area Bylaw has been authorized by resolution of Council, therefore District funding is NOT in place.
- The District has not provided required documentation indicating funding is in place to cover ongoing operations and maintenance of the Project. The District’s January 2008 Financing Options Report indicates that at current spending levels, the District “may need to seek interim financing for day-to-day operations. “
- The District erroneously answers "YES" to this question.
- Following pressure from the public, the Municipal administrator publicly admits that the proposal does not conform to the Official Community Plan, and the District then moved not to make the proposal conform to the OCP, but instead to revise the Official Community Plan.
The Application does not meet minimum requirements for water project funding consideration:
- The CBCMRIF guide states:“all applications for waterlines or sewer projects to replace failing private water supplies or on-site sewage disposal systems must provide documentation detailing the nature and extent of individual failures in a survey and providing water, soil, wastewater and groundwater sampling and analysis, with results prepared by a certified laboratory. Normally only on-site systems serving at least 25 lots, where there is a minimum 25 percent failure rate, will be considered for funding.”
CBCMRIF guide further states that "contributions will normally only be awarded for projects to replace failing on-site systems with community sewer in urbanizing areas of incorporated municipalities. Projects to correct on-site sewage disposal problems will be considered within the context of growth strategy goals."
- document the nature and extent of individual failures;
- meet the minimum 25 percent failure rate:
- [The District has insufficient data with which to calculate what percentage of wells have failed. No comprehensive study has *ever* been completed to include all properties, nor all *domestic* wells used. Existing hydrogeological reports state that there are "no health concerns indicated for the Senanus Peninsula Aquifer." ] CSWVA has stated they do not support studies of the problem:
1 | 2 |
When asked at Council meetings "Where exactly are the wells that have run dry?" CSWVA president responds stating: "A number of people have spoken up at Council meetings and to the press. No lists have been kept, as people are sensitive about this." Additional information is available on Senanus wells.
- [The District has insufficient data with which to calculate what percentage of wells have failed. No comprehensive study has *ever* been completed to include all properties, nor all *domestic* wells used. Existing hydrogeological reports state that there are "no health concerns indicated for the Senanus Peninsula Aquifer." ] CSWVA has stated they do not support studies of the problem:
- DCS's application is NOT for an urbanizing area. The proposal is to install urban infrastructure far outside of the urban containment boundaries, in areas zoned for rural services only.
- The project is contrary to District Land-use zoning and is contrary to sections of the District of Central Saanich’s “Official Community Plan” Bylaw:
- The proposed project was found to be contrary to the Official Community Plan and the CRD Regional Growth Strategy. On June 16, 2008, Council passed the following motion:
- The project does not have the required Permissions from other levels of government
- The project is contrary to the CRD Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), and would therefore require an RGS Amendment which has not been applied for.
- Environmental assessment questions were not answered accurately.
- The Provincial Archaeological Branch has not been consulted. Neither Archaeological monitoring nor Environmental Assessment costs were included in project estimates. According to a letter from the Provincial Archaeologist, Archaeological monitoring is recommended and archaeological permits will be required for the project, as there are known archaeological sites in the subject area.
- The area is traditional WSANEC land. Tsartlip First Nation has not been consulted on the project.
- Numerous problems have been identified with DCS answers to environmental questions on the application.
When the grant was announced, two press release versions became available. One states that the project is conditionally approved pending environmental assessments. The second version (easier to find on the Internet) has no environmental assessment conditions mentioned.
- The Proposed Project does not meet Requirements for Schedule B of Application
- Contrary to the District’s answer that the project has never been the subject of a Grant, the subject area was the subject of a previous grant application to the SAME grant program (#5375, which was unsuccessful as noted elsewhere in reviewers notes), and Grant Application, in 2000. (This Grant for green local solutions was directly opposed by pipeline proponents.)
- Traditional supply-management systems are not environmental
standards-based solutions. - The District application states: "there are no construction activites that could be considered to be particularly innovative or new technology"
• District’s “Project Rationale” is unsubstantiated and not supported by documentation provided.
• Integrated Management approaches are not utilized in the development of this project .
• The proposed project does not adequately consider climate-related risks, and does not identify appropriate adaptation measures, does not reduce Resource Consumption, nor does it promote utilization of alternative energy systems.
• The local Health Authority has not been involved, as required, with planning & development of the proposal
• This project does not support the building of 21st century sustainable infrastructure, as referred to in the Program Guide.
- According to the 2006 Census, this proposal will serve close to zero percent (0.25%) of Central Saanich homes.
- The granting agency states it will only fund projects that
represent "good value for money." - The few earlier studies done indicate that very few properties are affected, that any aesthetic issues can be easily rectified by in-home systems, and in ways that do not impose taxation on a large percentage of catchment area residents who do not require the service.
- The granting agency states it will only fund projects that