RDNO Water Survey Gets Comments

In June, GVAC chair Juliette Cunningham was quoted in the Morning Star as saying "We are developing a process where we will take our time and there will be an opportunity for the public to give us input."

That was encouraging, and many assumed that the RDNO water survey would be a stellar opportunity for opinions to be received from residents who likely did not plan to apply for membership to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, whose deadline for stakeholder applications closed yesterday, August 24th.

So it was with considerable dismay that no questions on the RDNO water survey--two months later--even remotely--touched on a topic that could be related to the failed referendum on borrowing $70 million for the Master Water Plan.

What a missed opportunity for our elected representatives to learn why it failed!

And comments did fly...however probably not the warm and fluffy comments that bureaucrats, who more than likely wrote the questions without input or permission from the advisory committee--expected.

A sampling:

"The questions asked (and particularly questions not asked) show strong bias towards producing results to support Greater Vernon Water's current practices.  They promote brown lawns and reduced water use but ask no questions about alternative water sources, about costs of water, about cost of and need for implementing the filtration being promoted, about using treating water for agricultural use, about security of supply, about management of the system, etc. etc."

"I remain undecided if I will answer the survey and I truly feel it is designed to solicit my support for GVW when in fact I am not at all happy with them and the survey does not give me opportunity to tell them so."

"The survey can be answered by anyone, including people who are not Greater Vernon Water customers & people who don't pay water bills and therefore are not aware of the circumstances arising from the Greater Vernon Water system.  Ignorance will clearly produce responses that play into GVW's hand."

"Several questions should have additional or other options for answers - some very possible and common answers have been omitted."

"There is no space at the end of the surveys, as is commonly provided, for respondents to state additional comments."

"It seems strange that this survey would be undertaken just as the Stakeholders Advisory Committee is beginning its work.  Who approved the issue of the surveys? and their questions?"

"I looked through all the survey questions and became more and more outraged at its absolute tripe when a myriad of meaningful questions could have been asked." 

"I answered the survey, remaining entirely unconcerned about water usage in general, because that was the only option left, given the lack of alternatives or the opportunity to answer an open question.  The survey is clearly structured to produce a desired result in favour of the existing system.  This must be brought to the attention of GVAC at the next opportunity."

"I completed the survey until reaching the last question only to find out there was no provision for comments.  Needless to say I did NOT submit it."

So it bears repeating...What a missed opportunity for our elected representatives to learn why the referendum failed.

 

 

"I wonder whether the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee even got to read the survey prior to release," muses Kia.

You mean...oh dear...that you think bureaucrats wrote and released a survey without elected officials having approved its contents?

 

Yup.

Nah...that'd never happen!