The "Weighting" of Non-Cost GVW Issues

Presumably SAC members are as keen to add their own weighting to Non-Cost Considerations as I was.

For the two (yes, two!) versions of what these descriptions cover, scroll down to "The Bureaucratic Penchant for Editing" blog post dated January 9th, 2016.
Have a look at it now, and then come back to this post.

Despite GVW's "editing" of the descriptions between the original version--and the one they two years later submitted to the SAC process--there's a need to do a further edit before you can make an "informed" decision and produce your own weightings.

Why?
Because your attendance at SAC meetings has taught you some things about the Master Water Plan.

First, I've added my weighting percentages as a third column at right:

Non-Cost Consideration descriptions	GVW weighting	Stamhuis weighting	My  weighting
1.       System operational ease and flexibility	15%	20%	20%
2.       Governance & Administration variances	15%	40%	60%
3.       Emergency Preparedness	10%	3%	1%
4.       Average Finished Water Quality	15%	5%	2%
5.       Reliability & Availability of Supply	15%	15%	2%
6.       Ease of Implementation	10%	5%	4%
7.       Future Expansion	10%	10%	10%
8.       Environmental  Impacts	10%	10%	1%
TOTAL	100	100	100

 
My information that helped produce the weightings above:

1.       1.  Consider 4-foot diameter pipes DCWTP, narrowing to 4-inch diameter at NE Vernon.  Is this truly a two-source water design?  Has anyone indicated what pipe sizes are along Okanagan Landing Rd?

2.       2.  A totally-separated system is easier to “govern” as agriculture is then essentially their own utility, but then there’s no-one to pay for ag infrastructure or consumption.  The only “variances” that exist is ag’s inability/refusal to pay their now-fair share.  Separated ag lines do NOT equate to no fire protection in winter (potable lines are 6-inch lines=same as those that serve domestic customers on fire hydrant lines).

3.       3.  GVW mentioned Earthquake risk.  If a large EQ occurs, waterlines would be affected regardless of location.  But no mention of wildfire risk at DCWTP (higher elevation equates to increased lightning risk).

4.       4.  GVW promotes balancing.

5.       5.  Consultant Brett said:  “You have lots of water”.  I feel the Okanagan Basin Water Board has to get out of our way politically.  (The Black Mountain Water District in Rutland/Kelowna states they have so much water they could supply our area!)   Repeat:  We have lots of water, we have lots of water!  Yes!

6.       6.  If the 40 or 50 year supply is Okanagan Lake, shouldn’t pipe diameters/sizing have been planned so that the direction of supply to customers does not continue from East --> NE Vernon direction?  What are present pipe diameter sizes, for example, on Okanagan Landing Road?  The argument could be academic as no-one will locate here if water is 2/3 cheaper in Kelowna and Armstrong.  

7.       7.  Commercial / industrial businesses are being directed to the N end of Vernon (where smallest pipe diameter sizes are located!?  Sounds like a bad recipe!)  Apart from available land, why?

8.       8.  Impacts (poison to customers!).   THMs and HAAs more important than environmental (chemical waste, which can be managed effectively).  Duteau Plant’s disinfection by-products are 40 times higher than those of the Mission Hill plant.  Could the health risk approach that of unchlorinated water???? 

Mussels are not included;  in my opinion should be a Provincial environmental ministry plan ASAP.

Okay, that's MY non-cost considerations.

Now it's your turn: (Right click to highlight entire table below, Ctrl-S to save, Ctrl-V to place onto a file or email on your computer).

Non-Cost Consideration descriptions	GVW weighting	Stamhuis weighting	Enter your  weighting
1.       System operational ease and flexibility	15%	20%
2.       Governance & Administration variances	15%	40%
3.       Emergency Preparedness	10%	3%
4.       Average Finished Water Quality	15%	5%
5.       Reliability & Availability of Supply	15%	15%
6.       Ease of Implementation	10%	5%
7.       Future Expansion	10%	10%
8.       Environmental  Impacts	10%	10%
TOTAL	100	100

   

Add what you've learned from your own thoughts on numbers 1 through 8:

Refer back to the two (yes, two!) versions of what these descriptions entirely cover to produce your own knowledge-based details under each of the 8 descriptions.

Oh...and then consider another thing about Mr. Stamhuis' valuable insight:

Of the 9 options in the Master Water Plan, he states this: 

Option 6, Complete Separation.  Okanagan Lake Source with Filtration Deferral:

"This option has overvalued the Operations & Maintenance (report by GVW!) cost of the intake by not crediting the savings of mothballing the Kal Lake intake.  This would reduce the option's Net Present Value to approximately $142 million.  If filtration deferral could be achieved for the life of the analysis, the NPV of this option would be $108 million -- substantially the most cost-effective.  It could be argued that this achievement may be more likely if we retained the Kal Lake intake.  In this scenario, the Net Present Value of this option would be about $118 million."

The weighting process is a valuable learning tool after adding information you've found valuable through the water review process.

 "Thought I was going to get weighed," sighed Kia with relief.

That weighting exercise actually felt good to perform.

I'm satisfied that it expresses my opinion.

What worries me now is how personally unsatisfied SAC members will be when they are reminded of the limitations of their review...non-cost issues and nothing concerning "political decisions", as RDNO boss Sewell indicated in late August.

...basically eliminating the entire Master Water Plan itself.