Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Decent Coverage


Great to see the Morning Star do stories on presentations from Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to the Vernon and Coldstream mayors and council.

Since Jennifer Smith wrote the best story, we'll print it first:
"Group lobbies for Utility Changes"

"A fresh look, a fresh source and hopefully a drop in rates is what some Greater Vernon citizens are hoping for.

The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan made its case to Coldstream council Monday.  The group is asking for an independent review of the Greater Vernon master water plan.

'Ultimately, we feel there should be a new master water plan that returns rates to an affordable level,' said spokesperson Eric Jackson, who served as Vernon's director of water reclamation for 25 years.

Coldstream has agreed to further discuss the plan at an upcoming committee of the whole meeting and bring the issue to the Regional District of North Okanagan, which also has plans for discussion and public input.

'We have been sitting there (at RDNO) for six years now trying to have a debate on water system rates' said Coun. Gyula Kiss, who has championed for change. 

The cost of water has tripled in the last dozen years, according to the group, which says in 2003 residents were paying about $300 for 350 cubic metres of water.

'That same amount now is costing $900,' said Jackson, not including the two per cent cost increase on tap for water users.  'It (water) has become a hardship.'

The group says residents are getting hosed by high rates, especially when compared to other communities.

Annual water bills, based on the same 350 cubic metres, for 2014 for Kelowna were $291, Penticton was $427, Port Moody is $371 and Langley residents pay $433.

The group also says rising costs, along with treating mainly agricultural water, is what led to the defeat of the Nov. 15 defeat(sic) of the master water plan borrowing referendum.

Water use data from the Duteau Creek treatment plant in 2011 and 2012 shows that only four per cent of the treated water was used for domestic during peak summer days.

'The balance, 96 per cent, of the treated water was used for agricultural irrigation,' said Jackson, questioning why Duteau Creek water is being treated to supply mainly irrigation.

Kiss suggests transferring the array of existing water licenses in the area to Okanagan Lake.

'Treatment cost is significantly lower," said Kiss, who applauds Jackson's ideas.  'I think you are on the right track.'

Meanwhile others took some offences(sic) to Jackson's presentation.  'There's decisions made from the 1960s to present day,' said Coun. Doug Dirk.

''We're in the unfortunate situation of determining how to go forward.  It's not fruitful to discuss how things could have been done'."

"So Dirk supports continuing on," sniffs Kia, "because he's tired of looking at it."

 
Now Richard Rolke's story, followed by his editorial:
"Public input part of water plan"

"The future of Greater Vernon's water utility will involve the public.

That promise came from Vernon politicians as a group of residents pushed for changes to the master water plan Monday.

'I'm glad some citizens have come forward,' said Coun. Catherine Lord.

'We will open up the plan and take another look at it.  The plan at the regional district is to have public input and consultation.'

Coun. Juliette Cunningham, who is Greater Vernon Advisory Committee chairperson, says the Regional District of North Okanagan will create a strategy for public input on how the water utility should evolve.

'We want an opportunity for all of the public to express their views,' she said.

After the meeting, Cunningham admitted that GVAC must look beyond just the suggestions coming from Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, which presented Monday.

'We can't assume one group is speaking for all of the community,' she said.

Citiziens for Changes to the Master Water Plan formed after a majority of Greater Vernon voters show down borrowing $70 million for water plan projects.  'We need to take a fresh, new look at the master water plan,' said Eric Jackson, group spokesperson. 

'People on fixed incomes are finding it difficult to pay their water bills.'

A primary concern for the group is where Greater Vernon is accessing its water.

'We chose the wrong water course to treat,' said Jackson of Duteau Creek, adding that it should only be used for irrigation and domestic water should come from Okanagan and Kalamalka lakes.

The group is also pushing for an independent consultant to review the master water plan and develop affordable rates."

"The group speaks for more of the community than GVW bureaucrats or directors have been," offers Kia.



Now Rolke's editorial of the same date:
"More Voices Required"

"A basic principle of democracy is the direct involvements of constituents.  It may come in the form of votng, providing input on key issues or simply keeping elected officials on their toes.

And an example of that grassroots effort is the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, an affiliation of residents and former politicians and public servants.

'I'm glad some citizens have come forward,' said Coun. Catherine Lord after the group presented to Vernon council Monday.

'We will open up the plan and take another look at it.  The plan at the regional district is to have public input and consultation.'

Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, or CCMWP for short, was borne out of the fiasco that occurred last November when a majority of Greater Veron residents refused to approve borrowing $70 million for capital projects.  The Interior Health Authority had mandated the works to conform to drinking water standards, but the Regional District of North Okanagan's sales pitch was weak, and speculation about the cost, water sources and operational practises was allowed to fester.

With RDNO officials still reeling from the referendum loss, CCMWP has tried to fill the void.

'We need to take a fresh, new look at the master water plan,' said Eric Jackson, group spokesperson.  People on fixed incomes are finding it difficult to pay their water bills.'

Among the proposals coming from CCMWP is using Duteau Creek strictly for irrigation and shifting all domestic water use to Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes.

'Water use data for 2011 and 2012 on peak summer days shows only six megalitres or four per cent of the 150 to 160 megalitres of treated water being used for domestic purposes.  The balance, or 96 per cent, of the treated water was used for agricultural irrigation,' said Jackson.

'Why are we treating the Duteau Creek water to supply mainly irrigation water?'

CCMWP is pushing for an independent consultant to review the master water plan and develop a conceptual design for future works and a cost analysis.

'We want a new look at the whole master water plan to see where we went wrong,' said Jackson.

Obviously that's fair comment, but who do local politicians take direction from?

'We can't assume one group is speaking for all of the community,' said Juliette Cunningham, a Vernon councillor and Greater Vernon Advisory Committee chairperson.

That is also fair comment as members of CCMWP are well-intentioned and bring some expertise to the table, but their mandate and concepts may not represent the broader community, including those who voted against borrowing $70 million.

What if another group of residents makes a completely different set of demands regarding water?  Should CCMWP be considered more relevant because it was formed first or because it includes a former Vernon mayor and former councillors from the city and Coldstream?

And while the CCMWP insists voters repudiated the technical merits of the master water plan, that may not be the view for some residents.

'We can't assume to know what failed -- the plan or funding for the plan,' said Cunningham.

The regional district is currently looking at its next steps for the master water plan, including a strategy for public input.

'We want an opportunity for all of the public to express their views,' said Cunningham.

Ultimately, members of Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan deserve praise for taking an active role on a critical issue that will impact the long-term future of Greater Vernon."


"....can't assume to know what failed?  Wouldn't that have been considered when the decidedly-narrow referendum Question was formulated and agreed on by the very politicians now asking? In which everybody had a say at the time?", queries Kia.





Ultimately, the decision to change some players will need to be made.



2 comments:

  1. Good article by J. Smith, but for voting representative purposes does it really matter what Coldstream Council collectively thinks? Dirk is the RDNO Director, with Garlick is the alternate.... and I think we know what Dirk thinks. One wouldn't want facts or smothering water rates to get in the way of a predetermined position that has all the appearance of protecting faulty prior decisions. Unless Vernon "demands" a relook, and an external third party evaluation of this mess, we are going to have this MWP jammed down our throats. My advice is to get your real estate listed now in order to beat the exodus to much cheaper jurisdictions ( with clearly smarter governance) like Lake Country, Kelowna and Penticton !

    ReplyDelete
  2. It’s Cunningham’s comments that’s getting our goat:
    “We can’t assume one group is speaking for all of the community”, and ”We can’t assume to know what failed--the plan or funding for the plan”, and “We want an opportunity for all of the public to express their views”.

    We have to assume one group is speaking for the rest of us all the time . . . wasn’t it something abysmal like 18% who voted in the oval track?
    The referendum results nixed borrowing to support the proposed Master Water Plan. Therefore, the public did express their views when they voted against supporting the Master Water Plan, just as we thought we were doing when we voted no in the referendum.

    And what the hell do they need a consultant for? One would hope there was proper consulting done to prepare the Master Water Plan in the first place, but one does wonder--surely a consultant wouldn’t recommend treated water for irrigation? It’s just common sense, isn’t it? And isn’t it common sensical to assume that no one likes paying a lot more than anyone else for water? Cheeeez.

    Rolke asks who politicians take direction from. Well, duh, in this case it should’ve been from knowledgable?? people consulted to prepare the plan but, holy cow, there’re lots of municipalities to take a look at, too.

    ReplyDelete

Share YOUR thoughts here...