Editor:
The Aug. 5 Coast Reporter reports SCRD director Frank Mauro as saying that the public had lots of opportunity to comment leading up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. Director Garry Nohr stated, “All of this was presented to people up and down the Coast (when the water plan was debated).”
Did this occur? I believe not. When presented with the AAP choice, I downloaded the 2013 Comprehensive Water Plan. I could find not a single specific reference to deepening of the outlet channel by five metres. The plan focused on the option of a floating pump station, providing a diagram, as well as capital, operational and maintenance, and life-cycle costs. The required drawdown was noted to be three metres, not five metres as currently proposed.
Alternative options to the floating pump as a near-term water supply were not examined in the water plan, but were to be investigated in the future. When have the details of these options been presented to the public? Not at the spring SCRD public open house that I attended, after a decision to deepen the channel had been made by the SCRD.
I support the board in its commitment to access more water to deal with drought conditions. However, why this project versus another option? In the past, SCRD engineers have consistently recommended the floating pump as the most cost-effective and environmentally sensitive approach. Why now a more costly project requiring the disruption of a larger area of sensitive, high elevation lake environment?
Those of us in the District of Sechelt who experienced the controversial sewer treatment plant project were at least presented with council’s rationale before we voted for a $7.2-million long-term loan. Where is the transparency on this $5-million project?
Judy Skogstad, Sechelt
