- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
If Ed is such an expert along with Richter lets hear their persoanl agenda to remediate the situation. STOP slamnming the plan and give us the specifics of your ground-water conservation plan. The cutting of trees in the township is old hat and hardly the real reason for the issue to be an issue at all. It is time for Richter and Monteith to talk the talk and walk the walk....if no meters then how do YOU propose controlling the situation (a plan of action that provides a viable alternative for council to vote on) - come on give the citizens the goods NOT the sensationalist headlines!
Good Idea, Ed, let’s "filter some Bafflegarb":
“They have turned a blind eye when their development methods…”
Factually untrue: Drainage planning is part of all new development plans, including going so far a requiring some new developments to trap and treat roof water, and pump it back into the ground to make up for impermeable surface loss. (see http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/08/2...4/PumpingBlind/
)
“London Drugs… you will see enough water wasted with each flash flood, to feed every well in the township for at least a month or more.”
Factually incorrect. The London drugs parking lot is approximately 7000 square m. The annual average rainfall for Langley city is about 1.5 m, so the total amount of water that falls on that lot is about 11,000 cubic meters, or 11 million litres. That is roughly the amount of water consumed annually by four Canadians. So if 100% of the water falling on the London Drugs parking lot over the entire year were somehow trapped, stored, and treated to drinking water standards, it would supply the needs of a single family. An individual “flash flood” would only represent a flash in that pan.
“It can no longer be absorbed and held by the vegetation that you have reclessly allowed to be destroyed by the gung-ho development on the south slope of the willoughby escarpment”
Factually incorrect: the Willoughby escarpment is not a significant groundwater infiltration zone, and that is the very reason it is planned for more intensive development. The combination of impermeable surface materials (clay) and the slope mean a miniscule component of the rainwater that landed on the Willoughby Escarpment prior to development directly infiltrated. Development here instead of in areas where infiltration is more effective is an example of planning development to reduce impacts on groundwater, exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
“Charging for additional hardware for the water delivered from these facilities will be adding insult to injury”.
Rhetorically suspect: Well owners knew they were not connected to municipal water when they bought their land. To call their well and maintenance cost “injury”, as if it is something imposed on them by the township, is to cast dispersions. The well owners already incur costs related to legislation regarding well water (health authority rules regarding well head protection, etc.). As for charging for the water in the well, to state it simply: the water does not belong to them, it belongs to the Province of BC.
“ Darth is of course is a symbol of none other that the Ministry of Agriculture…”
Politically wrongly directed: If you don’t like the Ministry of Agriculture’s practices, talk to your MP, as it is a federal body. Air emissions from mushroom composters have nothing to do with the water management plan, perhaps talk to the Ministry of Environment (or your MLA).
“At this moment there is every reason for the township council to slow the process, before starting with the metering of private wells. That procedure would be a costly, and a very large and complex program to implement fairly. There are far too many contributing factors to the diminishing levels of our water tables, and a fast track will contribute nothing sensible when prioritizing solutions”
Factually all over the place, only correct when agreeing with the plan: The plan does not “start with the metering of private wells”, but suggests that widespread metering may be the only way to get a handle on the current consumption. Metering the farms and industry is included, as it is hard to argue that everyone except you should be metered. The plan acknowledges that there are numerous factors affecting the water levels, and makes 43 recommendations, from changing farming practices to incentive programs for domestic users to changing development practices and limiting municipal extraction. Of these 43 recommendations, one is to move towards universal metering over 8 years. Hardly a “fast track”, the 8-year part is the last part of the plan to come into effect. Everything else will happen first.
I agree with Ed on one thing: go to the open house tonight, I found the last one informative.
RC,
Where do you live in Langley? How are you obtaining the water you consume?
-
Whats worked for the last 200 years wink? The letter in the Times has it down 'PAT'. If the Township is so concerned over the water they sould be rethinking their process of developing, especially in areas most impacted. For instance, they just sold 10 acres to a 'farmer' that was solid forest. The trees are all gone (there goes the water retention)and the Township passed a permit for 10,000 truck loads of fill for a blueberry farm. More water to be used. Down the road is a cranberry farm that goes with sprinklers 24/7 at times. I've been told by a neighbour that some people in the area are having water problems, and having to redrill.
Now, these are the same 'bonafide farmers' that will end up having the quota (however much they need) to continue watering without being charged. How in the %^$# does that seem right? And, even if they did charge, how in the heck will that change the water table? If they need it, they'll use it, no matter.
Irrelevant. Instead of changing the subject or trying to find a divide between people, concentrate on the issues we are discussing. And thank-you wink for raising the point about alternatives. I think Kim has clarified her position somewhat, and I rather agree with her on the governance issue, but I think we also agree this plan needs a few tweaks, it doesn’t need to be tossed out wholesale.
Willy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The letter in the Times was wrong on several fronts (see post above). Again, all of your complaints about past practices are covered in the water management plan (I'm getting tired of repeating that refrain).
RC
You can say what you want about past practices covered in the water management plan. We are now doing battle in South Langley over this smelly, stinky, mushroom compost. What happens is that 'the right to farm' takes precedent over just about anything in the whole world. We have had complaints for 3 years and the problem keeps being passed around like musical chairs from one department to another, one ministry, to another and no one wants to go up against the 'right to farm'. We have now had to hire a lawyer, at our expense, and now he gets the run around with the meter running for us.
You say 'talk to your MP'...... the MP's have attended, the Mayor has attended, councillor's, GVRD,etc etc, nothing changes. It really isn't quite as easy as you would lead to believe! Think back a few years to Money's Mushrooms, I think those poor residents fought for 10 years or more to get rid of that stench and you would think the powers that be would have learned something through that horrilbe experience.
Got any other ideas?
RC,
My question is not irrelevant. How do you obtain the water you consume? Your refusal to answer only solidifies the underlying reason you attempting to mitigate the legitimate concerns of those speaking out regarding this flawed WTP (Water Taxation Plan). I remind you that the introduction (or potential introduction for arguments sake) of an additional level of bureaucracy will need to be financed by someone. Just as rural living residents of the township currently subsidize storm drains, public parks, water treatment, garbage collection (in some areas) and Translink fees, you can bet your last dollar that urban residents in areas such as Willoughby and Walnut Grove will be subsidizing this Water Taxation Plan for years to come.
Why is it that some areas of the 48 page “draft proposal” are explicitly clear, while the paragraphs related to the financing of this project are clearly lacking content? In the 4 page staff summary the assumption is made that elements of the Water Taxation Plan “would likely be carried out and funded by the Province”. It also goes on to mention that a detailed cost estimate has not been completed. The issues of funding alone are grounds for an extension beyond the unrealistic December 31st deadline that has been placed on this project. The unusual measures being followed to fast-track this poorly assembled plan can only be viewed as suspect.
Perhaps you should reread the very article you linked in your original post as it is an example of the township’s blatant disregard for water conservation in development planning to date. They are the ones to blame for creating this situation by not properly regulating developers, new well drilling and the ecological impact of commercial and industrial water demands (such as Willoughby development, cranberry farms, etc.). Now is not the time for a knee-jerk reaction just in time for New Years. Did you miss this paragraph?
“But there are some significant catches. One is that where development has replaced absorbent forest and fields with hard pavement and buildings, a great deal of rainwater never gets the chance to "infiltrate" into the ground; instead, storm drains direct it straight into rivers and back to the sea.”
Regarding your point on rain water from rooftops being used to replenish supplies, keep in mind that the idea is an experimental pilot project. While it shows initiative, it does not counteract the failure to recognize the environmental impact of development in areas previously mentioned.
("We'll watch it for the next five or so years, and see how it compares to some of our other sites where we haven't done it," Brad told me when I visited Yorkson Village. If everything works as expected, and the rain captured from these homes helps stem the aquifer's decline, the idea may be adopted into a future revision of the Township's subdivision bylaw.”)
Regarding your rebuttal to the London Drugs flooding, to quote you, if “[an] individual “flash flood” would only represent a flash in that pan” why are you referencing a pilot project to trap rain water as an example of development planning initiative by council? That seems awfully contradictory to me. Just to reiterate your point: Rooftop rainwater is an example of council’s water conservation development planning initiatives, however the London Drugs flash flood water is not worth their efforts.
Fact:
- Rural residents are already subsidizing much of the tax burdens for services that typically only urban residents have the benefit of receiving.
- New urban, commercial and industrial developments have placed even more pressure on the groundwater supplies. Such projects are constantly rubber-stamped with minimal regard for the environmental impact.
- Rural residents have a higher annual cost that they are fully responsible for in order to receive water (well pumps, filtration tanks, annual maintenance, expensive sterilization equipment, etc.). Taxing a service residents are providing to themselves is unreasonable.
- Rural residents incur other costs (such as ever-increasing cost of home insurance) because of the inability of the township to provide them with the same services urban residents receive (such as fire hydrant access).
- Though the deployment of meters may take 8 years, the decision of whether it should be considered is being made now.
Before you jump on the Water Taxation Plan bandwagon I would recommend you take a step back and objectively look at this entire situation. If city council would slow down and employ the same tactic, we wouldn’t need to be having this discussion.
Willy’s concerns are justified.
Well said Anan.
My water, just like yours, comes from rainfall. The question is, however, irrelevant to the discussion. Do we only ask bus riders to comment on transit improvements? Do only dog owners comment on leash laws? Do people without children pay school taxes? Stop trying to be divisive, and let’s stick to the subject at hand.
I did the back-of-an-envelope calculation on the London Drugs parking lot to show your rhetorical argument about the amount of water “wasted” from the parking lot was bunk. In the interest of clarity: I made a mistake, and the water volume I calculated was actually about 7 times the annual per capita consumption, so two families, not one. If you want to get into the real argument, we can discuss the fact that the foot of the Willoughby escarpment is actually a groundwater discharge area. In other words, water does not appreciable infiltrate into aquifers there, it percolates out of aquifers higher up to the north, so no amount of surface infiltration in that area is going to do a thing for aquifers. Yorkson (where the pilot project is) is an important groundwater infiltration area, which is why the pilot was done there.
I’m not saying Willy’s concerns are not justified, I’m saying that the ones that actually have anything to do with groundwater are addressed in the plan, he just has to read the parts of the plan (99% of it) that don’t refer to meters on wells. As for his opinions on Mushroom composters, air quality, and the effectiveness or representative governments, they are not really the subject at hand.
err, I wouldn't say that RC. When I was at the meeting last night they had brochures for the taking on water management, you probably picked them up too. One of my neighbours has been trying for 2 years to get another neighbour to get rid of 2 HUGE mountains of manure that is uncovered. He went through all the proper channels(township, by-law officer, etc.). The wrongdoer was given to the end of last August to remove them completely. Guess what....they're still there.
In one of the brochures "Well Protection" under 'risks to be aware of'...among others states compost and fertilizer. Now, I would really say that this is related to my concerns. You see, when it comes right down to it the life cycle is so intertwined and balanced that you can't affect one without the other being connected is some way.
If the Township can't enforce the smelly mushroom compost, if they can't enforce the open piles of shit, I'm afraid I feel that I'm the best steward of my precious water and septic. We have been on well and septic all of our lives and I ask you...'who, better than I, cares about my water being good and my septic being healthy?'
Domestic well owners mostly just borrow the water for a while, and then return it to the ground via 6he septic system. A healthy septic system is therefore a key player in the process if we return the water so that nature can do the rest. If the township were to concentrate on this end of the process instead of the well end, maybe there would be agreement and compliance.
Septic treatment beyond the usual practice is not part of my knowledge, but I would be curious to know if the chemicals used in chemical toilets would be harmful to the groundwater over time. Any chemists who can comment on that?
RC,
Ed's reference to London drugs was probably meant to be the Future Shop. That definetly is the restored creek that can be seen from city hall, and it roars with activity after it rains. I think it might have been the cause of a flood not too long ago on the south side of the Bypass (A&B Sound?. Anyone know?
There's quite a pool of water that gathers to the north of Mufford Crescent at times. I don't know whether this is a natural pooling of water, or a pond created by the township. In any case it has to be run-off from the Willoughby hillside. I heard someone mention it quite a while ago, but nothing since.
The flood did occur but it was due to poor drainage on the City side of the boundary. They have now fixed that with new pipes and drainage system. Done last summer I think!
Thanks Rennie,
I think that the area in question is pretty much in a direct line with the creek/ditch that runs north to south, across from the township palace. When that thing floods, it a torrent and a half. It will take an awful large pipe to handle that stream when it's at full song.
I just read today that the council will have more open houses in the future regarding what the opinions of well owners are. To me that sounds like they will keep asking the same questions until they get the answer they want. If you look at the sequence of questions from the last two meetings, you may notice that they were very cleverly arranged, perhaps by someone with knowledge of psycology.
Let be real here. There will be a fading interest in going to open houses as time goes on. The matter of well owners opinion can be easily and inexpensively handled with a phone cencus of the known owners of wells.
Methinks, you are mistakenly of the assumption that the private domestic well owner is the only stakeholder in this situation.
The Water Police Are Watching You
The new water tax that is coming to Langley is no doubt the most draconian measure ever in the history of this Township
The people of Langley need to awake and stop this disgusting new new tax.
It is time to look at the facts:
The present population density of rural Langley is now 1 person per acre
The annual rainfall in Langley is 6.2 million litres of water per acre
Assuming a daily use of 500 litres per person (actual use is less than this) the rural resident is using less than 3% of the water falling out of the sky.
More than 97% of the water falling out of the sky is unused and untouched by the rural resident.
In addition the water used by rural residents is used on their property where it simply soaks back into the ground.
The mayor has said it is about “protecting the water”. This is nonsense. It is about tax on water.
Langley residents awake. Stop the tax now
Wally Martin
Langley BC
Back to the “Bafflegab”, are we? Clearly it has been a few years since wally got his degree in hydrology, since he skipped a few factors in his water cycle there (runoff, evaporation, transpiration, etc…). All of these affect the water used by the rural resident (most is lost to evapotranspiration and does not return to the aquifer by the way). Not to mention a point worth repeating: residential well owners are not the only stakeholders here, Ironically, they are the most protected under the Water Management Plan.
The facts look more like this: The aquifer you get your water from is dropping. Overextraction of the water is a major factor in this drop. If this drop continues, you will be forced to a) drill a deeper well at considerable cost to you, although that is a temporary measure at best, or b) get your water elsewhere. Assuming the township is not tapping the same aquifer as you, you may be able to get it from them, at considerable cost to you (both for infrastructure and a per-litre charge, because you know that pipe will arrive with a meter on the end of it), or from the GVRD, at considerably more cost to you (for more infrastructure, and because the GVRD charges a lot more for their water that the township). Whichever path you choose, your water is going to be metered.
End of facts, start of opinion: A meter on every well (farmers, industry, township, greenhouses, rural residents, you, me), along with increasing rates for overconsumption, is the best way to protect your water source, and mine. It is the only way we will be able to force the “big users” (generally defined as everyone except the person using the term) to reduce their consumption. Alternately, I guess we can get those "Water police" people you are talking about to enforce restrictions, but I like the conservative pay-as-you-go idea.
So Methinks, first you were complaining about the lack of public outreach and how they were “ramming this through”, and now you complain that there will be too much public outreach? I’m thinking consensus is not something you find too often.
Funny to think of the Mayor and cabal of... uh... watertaxers?... hiring a crack team of psychologists to develop a devious sequence of information panels designed to make water conservation seem like a good idea. the fiends!
Well said Wally. When you consider the wastage of the township's water before it even gets a chance to soak into the ground. the situation is even more grave.
Alberts and his cohorts will not abandon their intentions on this issue easily. For example, those who attended the open house on the 248 and 16th crossing will recall that the option to keep the 4 WAY stop was NOT LISTED AS AN OPTION. IMO most of the people that are at risk at that intersection thought that the 4 WAY should remain. If we read today's Times, they estimate the least costly "OPTION" is a roudabout at $800,000. Now the question should be: "How much for expropriation?" Meanwhile the 4WAY is free and existing, and was put there initially for safety reasons! What a coincidence!
The roudabout is what they want apparently, so that's what we'll get That makes the open house procedure looks like a sham.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this, in particular, how on earth they expect to get the tremendous number of trucks through this circle (17 semis in bumper to bumper last Friday).
You are right on Methinks! This going back and going back just reminds me of the thugs that kept 'going back' until they eventually got RAV shoved through.
It's really disgusting and I'm hoping for some big changes come next November. And, I might add, it doesn' t appear that I'm alone in this thinking.
I agree with Wally 100%. It is purely a tax grab, they have overspent on so many of their pet projects that we are now being stuck paying for. What about the DCC's? I understand a lot of the DCC's the developer's paid for in the Willoughby area, went to pay for Redwoods. There ought to be a law!
As for the 248th/16th intersection, it doesn't surprise me a bit to see them waffling on this, especially when it's the 'cheap way'. They would do well to look at the 242nd St mess. Township Engineering said they did it the way it was done as it was 30% cheaper than resurfacing. Guess what...the people are screaming, it's a complete mess, and now it looks like they're going to have to resurface it. I ask you, how can this be saving money. Cheap is not always best.
Anybody like to wager if this St were in Fort Langley they would cheap it?
Edited By Siteowner
RC, You are quite right when you say that private well owners are not the only stake holders here. I think that it's a fairly well known fact though that they are also not the heaviest users. They also are the least guilty of contaminating the soil with fertolizers and large quantities of manure. So the question becomes...Why the heck are they going after them instead of the heavy weights?
There was more evidence in today's Times (Headline no less) showing how that the township is the biggest cause of aquifer depletion. You will note the very heavy heavy flooding in the Milner area in the article, caused by run from the heavy and careless development on the Willoughby hillside (their words not mine). You will also note that the township will solve this by improving the ditches. Then if you are a thinking person (?) pou may conclude that once again a huge quantity of water will be sent on its way to Fraser River. That is another example water that will now not EVER go into the precious aquifer. Gone forever>
Re the questionaire, you need to read it again if you don't see how foxy that was arranged. Take note of all the motherhood questions where the answer was yes, yes, and yes again and again, because well users are not blind and stupid. Then there was that 1 and on;y question pertaining to metering our wells ( The reason we were there !) Very clever, but also devious.
Read the Times once again and you will note that the council will resist contact with all the facts to EVERY well owner in the township (page 4 top).
If metering private wells is what you want RC, you may very well get it if that's what staff engineering wants. Don't believe me?? Read page 4 of the Times today again on page 4, where Colin Wright states that he will not recommend designing traffic safety around public opinion. Why the heck do they have open houses for our opinion then?? That's eventually the attitude that will rule the day as long as we remain suckers. We need big time changes on the make up of this council IMO.
Federal Libs say they want a Federal Minister of Water. Maybe they want to get in on a tax grab too! But seriously, I hope they are finally seeing the light of its neccessity and very important focus nationally.
Cllr. Richter when she ran as the Fed. Liberal Langley candidate was vocal on the topic and lobbied for a federal ministry of water and said if elected she would continue lobbying for it in Ottawa. She was well ahead of her time in 2004 as she always is as clearly demonstrated recently once again with the good ole boys club on council who suddenly after ignoring her concerns are all now parroting her words after the fact on water!
Suddenly you hear the good ole boys saying "slow down" (as quoted by Cllr. Fox) but actually "verbatim" first quoted by angry letter writer(s) in the local rags and that they will NOW listen and try to perhaps delay/modify implementation, IF THEY CAN! Where were they before the public uproar? Certainly not on the same page with Richter.
I guess these good ole boys read the angry letters to the editors but not the actual bureaucrat's tax, spend and self sustaining bureaucracy growth reports or even Richter's warnings either! Sad.
Amazing what hypocrites they are when they don't second Richter's motion on the report initially and now after a public uproar are almost back on the same page again with Richter. Maybe they should have researched and read the report like she did earlier on. And more importantly maybe they should spruce up on trying to understand and read between the lines on these bureaucratic bafflegabs. But then again this bunch ALWAYS believes EVERY bureaucratic report. Why? Just because, how can our bureaucrats be wrong about something?! Rubber stampers? You bet.
Anyhow Harperite, Wawa, won over Richter in the 2004 election and he is now secretary to environment Minister Baird and in my humble opinion is, was and will be assuredly mum on the water issue(s)especially in Langley, his, rather OUR federal constituency! Wow, Harperites concerned about the environment and our water? LOL!
Why dosn't Mister Wawa offer to help totally fund the water meters and help mitigate the other draconian costs, tax issues and bureaucracy if he cares about our environment, especially locally? Especially if this is provincialy a ground breaking green and conservation issue?
You gotta especially like this Harperite, Baird, quote;
"Canadians dont want another bureaucracy and more red tape," said Baird's spokesperson Amanda Galbraith. "They want action and they want real results in their communities."
Do you guys out there in rural land like the Langley VAGUE version of "action" & more "red tape" bureaucracy so far on water? See more at;
http://www.canada.com/topics/new...6535d2f&
k=15577
Wow, what a remarkably nonsensical rant. LFP Editor: edit thyself.
Wait, did you just ask the Feds to help pay for rural meters? I thought you were completely against metering. I digress.
As for you guys in the old boys club here (Willy, Methinks), could you please stick to the issue at hand (remember? failing aquifers?), instead of the continued a tired paranoid diatribe about traffic, golf courses, and faceless bureaucrats stealing your money? Sad that this important discussion, fundamental to the future of the township, has devolved into paranoid delusional ranting against poorly understood ideas. Your feeble protestations about poor development planning and runoff from Willoughby being "wasted" smack of someone with no idea what they are talking about… hydrology is like surgery: folk wisdom is useful, but I prefer science. The flooding last week was the result of a once-in-100-years rain-on-snow event, and if you read the article instead of the headline, the issue was culverts needing cleaning, not development. But way to distract.
Metering private wells is not what I wanted Methinks, what I want is the township to perform due diligence about protecting a resource that the provincial liberals have (surprise!)abdicated responsibility for. That resource supplies my water, and saves the township a lot of money every year (by not relying on very expensive GVRD water). If you have a better idea for managing groundwater than metering (yes, I know, “stop development, now that I have a house”, “stop wasting, not that I ever wasted, and we all know who the waters are, just ask me, since no-one has a meter", “remove the humps from zero avenue”) please present it here. Otherwise quit trying to characterize a cost savings measure (after all, that is what this is!) as a tax grab.
RC thank you for the compliment. Coming from you it's an honour. Seriously though I agree 150% with your comment;
"..what I want is the township to perform due diligence about protecting a resource (water)..".
We all agree with you on this. Well said. So do you seriously believe that due diligence would have been served by the good ole boys club on Township council if not for the Public uproar on this WMP?
The plan has so many gaping open holes and weasel clauses left wide open for interpretation that the bureaucrats and the politicians could drive tons of things through them at any time and defined as literally anything.
Due diligence is realizing this and then tightening up the holes and then getting public understanding, buy in and consensus on the final WMP report.
LFP,
Sorry to throw in a note of constitutional law in this discussion but I thought I would supply some background info to keep the discussion grounded (okay bad pun but I am tired). Under the law groundwater is a resource. Under our constitution resources are under provincial jurisdiction. As such any Federal Minister of water would have no power whatsoever over groundwater. Unless someone had plans to re-write the constitution and get the change enacted the Feds are off the hook on this one. Since the resource is provincial in jurisdiction, the only reason the feds would cost-share is out of their good graces (i.e it is meddling in provincial affairs, certainly the type of meddling we like but meddling nonetheless).
Oh, I see RC has raised his clever(not) self up and decided to get back into the conversation. First of all RC, I'd like to let you know that I am not one of the boys in the Old Boys Club, I'm afraid that caption was already spoken for with Kurt and his group of mimics.
The other matter refers back to the reply comment I made to you on Nov 30 stating why I wouldn't give the TOL control of my water. I guess it just made so much sense you couldn't find an answer, and that's OK by me, because I wouldn't pay 'diddly' to what you have to say anyway.
RC, It was very nice of you to remind us of the other wrongs that Kurt and his crew have dropped in our laps over the years. Sometimes even I forget the whole list, but yes we whould stick to water management.
If you don't think enlarging the ditches in the Milner area won't just decrease the water that could optherwise feed the aquifer, there's not much more I can add.
If you think that I don't realise that people have to live somewhere you're out on a limb again. That remark is nonsense. I know they do, but the housing made available has to be better planned, so that this first planning error does not lead to others. I thas already exposed one of them. To stay on topic I won't mention the others.
If you are really looking for due diligence by all parties regarding the preservation and quality of our ground water, you should care mare about feeding it. There is something that I have not heard mentioned yet, and it concerns me greatly. Since we know that the amount of water now in our aquifers has been substantiually depleted, we now mest be facing a dilution factor. In other words the contaminants have less water to absorb them and naturally the PPM count is increased. So RC, if metering private wells is not what you wanted, I think you should get on the right track and look into the replentishment problems firstly, rather than deny their existence. There's not much sense arguing about metering, if the water becomes unfit to drink. Explain that if you can to Kurt and his henchmen.
LFP, I see this thing as what it is, a draft document. I think what you propose is absolutely correct. “tightening the holes, get public understanding, buy in, and consensus”. This draft document was developed, it is now being evaluated by council and the public, it will be amended based on that consultation, and that is where the “tightening up” will have to happen if they hope to get it through. I think you are dreaming if you think consensus will happen, though. In a typical “tragedy of the commons” like this, everyone is going to point fingers at everyone else until the resource is gone. Consensus would be nice, but I think understanding and reluctant acceptance are more likely goals. In the case of some, “understanding” might be a challenge.
Methinks, lets go through this one more time. The Willoughby slope is not a significant aquifer recharge area, due to thick clay soils. You could build a wall around Willoughby 100 feet high and fill it with water pumped from every development in Langley: none of it is going to get to the aquifers. It isn’t just what “I think” about ditches, you are arguing from a falsehood, the run-off issues at Willoughby have nothing, hydrology-speaking, to do with aquifer recharge. Let it go. This wall I am banging my head against is starting to hurt. Your idea of “feeding” aquifers is interesting, however. I’d love to see you explain that one.
Willy, I didn’t realize you wanted a direct response, I assume you mean this comment:
“If the Township can't enforce the smelly mushroom compost…I'm afraid I feel that I'm the best steward of my precious water and septic….I ask you...'who, better than I, cares about my water being good and my septic being healthy?'”
You see, Willy I’m not all that concerned about your water, just like you aren’t concerned about mine, and that guy running the hobby farm with the manure piles isn’t worried about either of us. However, we do pay taxes to a provincial government whose responsibility it is to protect the water. Apparently, they are not interested in doing so. The township has a vested interest in protecting it, they are willing to step up and take some responsibility. Good on them. More to your point, I would rather have Aberts and his (crew? mimics? what was that other word? Oh, yeah…henchmen!) administering it than you, or the guy with the manure piles. At least we can vote the &a$t@rd$ out.
Hey RC, not badly presented at all. I really liked some of your observations in your last posting. Especially your last sentence! I'm starting to really get fond of you now. 
RC, there's no hope for converts I'm sure, so stick to your guns if you like, and I'll do the same.
One important comment to point out. If not for one Councillor's diligence in reading, dechipering and then ringing alarm bells LOUDLY, there is no doubt that attendance at the open house would have been sparse and this council would have either knowingly or unknowingly have voted for this loosy-goosy "Waterlink" plan before Xmas as was scheduled. I don't think I have to tell you who this Councillor is!
So when you see all the re-writes of history and backpeddling by the rest of council, don't be fooled by their sudden change in attitude solely out of self preservation. Hypocrites then and hypocrites now! You elected and re-elected them! Why?
I read in Friday's Advance that the township council passed a motion for "Staff" to report back in 2008. TYhere is now "No rush". There really never was.
Given that there is quite a long list of targets in the grand scale of reversing the decline in our aquifers, perhaps "Staff" could assist the council by prioritizing action items starting with those that give the best and fastest turnaround to the aquifer destruction. Then the council could do what we elect them to do, which is make decisions.
Common sense has indicated that they started at the wrong end of the offenders list. IMO opinion they have been foolish by allowing themselves to be led by the nose.
Commenting by HaloScan
