Dear editor,
I attended the water meeting this week, maybe 35 others took it in, if you don’t count all the consultants and Regional District staff. We were treated to a riveting analogy of water treatment options, gosh they even had a PhD there to tell us about that...what I wanted to hear was that they were going to do a deep water intake in Comox Lake. They told us they are still considering a river intake, yes, can you believe that? Where have these guys been for the last several years, maybe their head in one of the sand filters that were so aptly described.
Anyhow, we were told about filtering options... what I wanted to hear was that they had determined the most cost effective method of treating the water from a deep water intake and wanted us to support that.
Didn’t get that.
They wanted us to tell them how they should filter the water. Most of us are not qualified to do that, even without cost estimates for the various methods, and all about sustaining water supply and telling the logging industry and others around to take a hike. We sat around in groups after the presentation, maybe 25 of us were still there for that portion, and rated the options and desires for water treatment, supply and filtration, all with no firm method to rate, and talk about the quality of water we would like and long-term supply. Anyhow, they got their public input!
To top off my week, I read in the paper today that there is still consideration for a bridge at 11th Street... talk about head in the sand. Now if I can filter the options, the only real alternative is 29th Street, and the sooner the local governments get on board with that one and secure the property requirements, the better off transportation will be in the Valley, even with a causeway across the river, much to the chagrin of the all the local environmentalists.
Paul Ellegood
Area B