Perspectives on Lantzville/Nanaimo Water Deal Machinations

Well, by now Lantzvillagers should know that, at their regular meeting on Sept. 8th, Lantzville council, with only Councillors Mostad and Haime dissenting, voted to accept the modified agreement with Nanaimo for them to provide us with bulk water. What you may NOT know, is exactly how it happened! Do you remember those 'Community Update's that we receive from the District on a regular basis'? Well, the District had been telling us that the draft water agreement continues to be discussed with Nanaimo and, before any agreement would be signed for the provision of bulk water to Lantzville, there would be extensive, public consultation in the form of information circulars and meetings.

At their regular council meeting on Sept. 8th, before any of that consultation had occurred, Lantzville council decided to add the water agreement to the Agenda (meaning that no one who had been checking the District website to see what would be on that Agenda would have had any idea that the water agreement would be dealt with). However, given that the meeting was a 'full-house', it appears that a limited group of individuals were told in advance what would be transpiring at that meeting. As if all this wasn't bad/undemocratic enough, earlier in the summer, Lantzville council had negotiated some changes to the draft water agreement with Nanaimo, one of which took away the requirement that the residents of Lantzville would get a vote on whether or not to accept the water deal. Now I can already hear their bleating - 'since there was no capital expense involved, the water deal didn't have to go to a referendum vote'. Well, I can only see two things wrong with that assertion, the first being that there will be a significant expenditure to construct the actual connection to Nanaimo's water system and the second is that, even if it wasn't legally required, given the massive impact bulk water would have on our community, a vote was ethically and morally necessary.
In the recent Community Update specifically on the water agreement, Council says that the reason they signed the agreement without the promised public consultation was that it gives them the opportunity to obtain bulk water from Nanaimo but that is NOT an answer to the question posed! I would ask why they were in so much of a hurry to sign the agreement that they took the very undemocratic approach detailed in the preamble above. Did they have any specific reason to believe that the agreement would not be there next week, next month or next year, after the promised round of public consultations were completed? For my money, I believe that they were motivated by councillor Haime's remarks back on Nov. 28/11 that "there will be no change in service in the District over the next 3 years and everyone she's talked to wants stagnation for the next 3 years" and they desperately wanted to prove her wrong, sadly at Lantzville's expense!

Following are links to local media stories (just click on the ones of interest to you) about the water situation in Lantzville, the water agreement with Nanaimo and Letters to the Editor on same, as well as comments that I posted to the sources' website. Note that the Nanaimo Daily News does not routinely provide the ability for people to comment on their on-line articles:

Lantzville residents raise concerns over water deal with city

Lantzville should source its own water (Letters to Editor)

Lantzville's water issues misunderstood (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville councillor suggests sending water deal to referendum


   Lantzville Council would do well to listen to what the residents have told them in the Citizen Satisfaction Survey on water. Of those on wells who responded, only 13% [24] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quality and only 12% [22] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quantity of their water.
added 14 10 24 - Not meaning to ignore the feelings of those ~880 homes currently on the community water system, consider carefully the following results (also from the Citizen Satisfaction Survey): when asked if they supported an expansion of their water system, 28% [75] said 'YES', 39% [106] said 'NO' and 33% [88] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered feedback/comments. Also, of those on wells who were asked the same question (presumably to be able to supply water to their properties), 27% [39] said 'YES', 32% [47] said 'NO' and 35% [51] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered additional clarifying comments. While the District could have done an extensive 'water survey' to fully define the 'problem', they have chosen not to. Given the above data, at the present time there is no overwhelming evidence to support bringing bulk water to Lantzville!!!
   Under the Haime administration, all taxpayers of Lantzville have already contributed $200,000 to the City of Nanaimo just for the 'opportunity' to discuss emergency water with them plus ~$80,000 over 9 years to the City's Port Theatre just to be able to continue to talk water, with another request expected any day. Then there is the $78,000 those on the water system have also paid for an emergency water connection, which has yet to be used 7 years later. So, we have already paid dearly to the City without a drop of water actually having been delivered.
   Let's not forget that it was Lantzville council who brought in the requirement that the minimum size of property created without BOTH municipal sewer and water services would be 1 ha (2.47 acres), a requirement which 'motivates' vacant landowners to look favourably on the need for municipal sewer and water services.
   Given all of this, I think that a frank and open discussion surrounding the whole issue of water in Lantzville is long overdue and I would support that. This would also include the impacts of having more water than the current residents require, including facilitating large developments. We need to openly discuss how much development we are willing to accept and whether development is really "going to pay for itself", without fear of being labelled 'backwards' if we opt for low growth. Unfortunately, when there is power and money involved, that type of thing seldom happens!

Water deal with Lantzville waits on Nanaimo city council vote



Nanaimo councillors approve water deal with Nanaimo


Lantzville getting bargain on Nanaimo's water (Letter to Editor) 

Water deal should be put to vote in Lantzville (Letter to Editor)

Interesting that this letter was written at a time when the draft agreement between Lantzville and Nanaimo already contained a requirement that the agreement subject to a positive vote by Lantzville residents before it could be enacted (a clause that was later be asked to have removed by Lantzville council and agreed to by Nanaimo council).

Drinking water found by Foothills developer

Deal is still on after developer locates water

Lantzville considers options on water

We already know how the large landowners, the media and council came together to 'convince' us that we needed sewers ("literally a cesspool") and now its happening again on water. There are far less expensive ways of dealing with geographically limited boron/salt water contamination than piping water from 30 km away.
If the majority of Lantzville residents do not want major development, why should their wishes not be respected - each of us has the same voting power as a single large landowner?! We should be allowed to live in peace in our 'backwater' without being made to feel stupid. We will be fine without this added infrastructure but the developers will not. Also, one of the biggest myths concerning development is that it pays for itself - which is very seldom true. The off-site costs and the disruption caused by the construction are significant and the taxes typically fall short. In the 9 months between now and the local elections, let your voice be heard, loud and often.


Motion on water referendum fails

Councillor offers up water option 

Enlist technology in making water available (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville council has yet to ratify agreement that will see water sharing with Nanaimo 

Lantzville residents seek the truth on water deal (Letter to Editor) 

Lantzville councillor calls for referendum

Town's water wars continue

Lantzville water vote called premature

Lantzville residents can't be complacent (Letter to Editor)

 City Log: Water-sharing agreement comes before council

Council approves changes to water agreement

As you can see, the Nanaimo Daily News left out the most important change requested by Lantzville council, and now approved by the City of Nanaimo, that being the removal of the requirement for there to be a vote by residents of Lantzville on the water deal. Interestingly enough, the Nanaimo Bulletin didn't mention it in their piece either. Strange that neither paper could see the importance of such a significant change!

Lantzville council votes to sign water deal with Nanaimo

We were promised public consultation via meetings and information mail-outs and we didn't even get the chance to speak to this major, major issue for our community at that fateful council meeting. Shame, shame, shame!! I guess we should have known the 'fix was in' when Lantzville council took the decision out of the hands of those who would be paying for it and put it in their own - several of whom will now stand to benefit from their decision. Many questions will remain unanswered - how much will Lantzville water users be paying for water usage (more or less than currently?). Are we now going to be required to waste as much water as Nanaimo does since we are required to adopt their water conservation regime? We have had an emergency water connection for years (which cost us $280,000) and have never had to draw a single drop). The vast majority of Lantzvillagers [on wells - added 14 10 13] were satisfied or more than satisfied with their quantity and quality of community-water so this has to be all about development. Mark my words, this is the end of Lantzville, folks! How long do you think that the province is going to allow us to play at governing ourselves when our sewage is treated in Nanaimo and now our water comes from Nanaimo? 

Public meeting set to discuss Lantzville water deal

Isn't that just wonderful - except for the fact that we were promised meetings BEFORE council would even consider accepting the water agreement. I suppose that we had to know council was going to approve the agreement no matter what the majority of Lantzville residents thought when they lobbied the city of Nanaimo to remove the requirement of approval by the residents of Lantzville. In my more than 20 years of watching local politicians do everything they could to keep the voters out of the process, but never could I have imagined that Lantzville council would be the one to stoop to a new low - leaving the water agreement off the Agenda and then adding it just prior to dealing with it.
Also, it certainly didn't take long for the developers to swoop in. Almost before the ink was dry on the water agreement, the District was signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the new owners of the Lantzville Foothills regarding development on their lands.
Really - what is there for us to discuss?!

Lantzville signs water agreement

Rather than his service with the tiny Lantzville Improvement District almost 30 years ago, I strongly suspect that Bob Colclough's ownership of a 5-acre piece of property adjacent to the Lantzville Foothills Estate's (Lone Pine) properties and his ownership of a company that does "land, community and economic development" consulting did more to inform his position of not seeing any reason not to sign the water agreement. The people of Lantzville, who have consistently said that they are satisfied with their water quantity and quality, might beg to differ. Sadly for democracy, now they won't even have that opportunity they were promised by council!

Lantzville's dry spell is over

Water agreement seems a bit leaky (Letter to Editor)

RDN Gives Up Any Pretense of Controlling Urban Sprawl

In response to a call for feedback on a proposed new agreement between the members of the Regional District of Nanaimo, I submitted the following comments. Being a resident of Lantzville, I had already seen the old, more robust UCFAMIA agreement being manipulated by politicians or staff in order to satisfy someone's lust for money. Lantville has lost several pieces of land to the City of Nanaimo, driven by the City's lust for taxes and the provincial government's need to keep their friends happy. As ineffective as the currrent agreement was in preventing urban sprawl, I can guarantee that the proposed agreement will basically remove any pretense of the attempt.

Attn.: Christina Thomas, Senior Planner
Re: Urban Containment Implementation Agreement Public Input

The concept of an Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) is a key element in the Regional Growth Management Plan’s (RGMP) objective of limiting urban sprawl and protecting rural values. The 6-page Urban Containment Implementation Agreement (UCIA), which is proposed to replace the 14-page Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement (UCFAMIA), is a classic case of putting the wolf in charge of the hen-house. It is not possible to have a workable RGMP when each member jurisdiction is put in charge of establishing their own “community needs” and a highly subjective phrase such as “on balance” is used to qualify the criteria terminology, which itself is open to interpretation by each party to the agreement. Two criteria intended to prevent “adverse changes” to the health and on-going viability of sensitive ecosystems and the resource productivity of adjacent lands have also been removed in this revision, in my opinion, further weakening it.
The current UCFAMIA has already been misappropriated in order to extend by 0.5 km the urban sprawl which has come to define the City of Nanaimo. In that instance, a small sub-group of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (IAC) decided to arbitrarily change the key definition of “community needs” in the agreement so that, instead of the criteria being about the needs of the community (which couldn’t justify the inclusion of the Jeffs’ property into the City’s UCB), it became about the needs of this particular piece of property for services such as sewer and water. One would perhaps expect this kind of behaviour from some developers but certainly not from the public body which is supposed to govern for the benefit of us all. If this is a precursor to what can be routinely expected with the proposed agreement, we might as well not have a RGMP since it will be impotent.
The only way to control urban sprawl and protect rural values is through a coordinated effort where the various RDN jurisdictions are subject to the strictures of “the greater good” and not in the position of “competing” with one another for development. You cannot have a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) creating a livable region when each ‘fiefdom’ in the ‘Kingdom’ is free to decide where the castle walls end. No reasonable parent would allow their children to decide what they are each having for dinner and then let them make it because they will end up eating empty calories, competing for ‘ingredients’ and leaving the kitchen in a mess.
Although, contrary to Ms. Thomas’ report, it really isn’t a change over the existing UCFAMIA, allowing UCB changes to be considered out-of-sync with the RGS means another opportunity for the public to be able to provide timely, meaningful input is made more difficult and will result in applications being received “willy-nilly”, with any hopes of coordination and “seeing the big picture” being forfeit. This will end up being just like Nanaimo’s OCP amendment process where applications have been accepted mid-stream and almost any old justification/reason is accepted for going against the express will of the people. You can’t do growth management piece-meal and on-the-fly! It matters not how many meetings with planning staff of each of the member municipalities your staff has had or how many meetings of the IAC there have been or that someone from the Ministry of Community, Women’s and Aboriginal Services facilitated them (they have proven to be as autocratic as anyone), it is clear to me that the intent is to water down the present agreement so that the public will lose even that avenue of protest over your inability/unwillingness to control urban sprawl, as required by the RGMP. This agreement is supposed to protect rural values, yet the Electoral Areas (which could be significantly affected by any failure of the agreement) don’t appear to have been part of the consultation process leading up to it – I think that speaks volumes about how much the “member municipalities” really care about the well-being of their neighbours and the livability of their region. Somebody has to be the parent in this relationship, making and enforcing decisions for the benefit of the whole family and jurisdictions, like children, need boundaries (figuratively and literally).

After receiving input from the public, the RDN decided to hold off on implementing the new agreement - basically what they did was wait until they thought the public had forgotten about the issue and then they went ahead and did it anyway!