While SCRD directors and staff quibble over whether to declare a water emergency or a water crisis on the Sunshine Coast, the pressure on them to come up with solutions is mounting.
For a short-term fix, the SCRD has been approached by a group of individuals who are passionate and certain that reducing water flows in Chapman Creek will increase supply to stave off the most severe restrictions this summer. The board has agreed to take the matter up with the province, but an admission by the infrastructure manager – that “we don’t have any good analysis to support such a request, because we’ve never looked at it from this lens” – underscores the RD’s institutional memory vacuum due to turnover in many key positions.
Board members appeared to be receptive, and one director is on record as saying she supports the move; however, chair Lori Pratt told us this week that “it’s more information gathering” at this point and the board would not want to press ahead “until we have a surety that it’s environmentally sound.” The province, which has all the say in the matter, will obviously take the same position and may dismiss the proposal out of hand. Staff are also looking at Trout Lake and Grey Creek as possible sources of additional supply. They may be a little out of their depth, but they do seem to be taking the emergency – or crisis – seriously.
The pressure to find a long-term solution is also intensifying.
A letter to the SCRD board from the Sechelt and District Chamber of Commerce, posted to the Chamber’s Facebook page Wednesday, employs the most forceful language to date by a community organization on this issue.
“The uncertainty regarding the supply of water for our communities negatively impacts economic development, endangers homes and businesses and places an additional burden on businesses and community. This harms the attractiveness of and quality of life on the Sunshine Coast,” the letter says.
“It is our view that the process of addressing this matter needs to be improved, urgently. We need solutions being implemented now. Plans that mean waiting three or more years to be implemented are not acceptable.”
The letter lays out six items for the board to consider, including the need to determine the financial resources available, to “expedite a decision on what is/are the best solution(s) that will meet the community’s needs now and for several decades to come,” and “finding and using the best experts” to undertake the work.
It’s a tough message and the board can expect to hear much more of the same now that water restrictions have entered the acute stage. The pressure is definitely on.
