Deja vu...all over again

...that famous quote from Yogi Berra.

I recall a comment from a water consultant during the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, where it was stated:  "You're 10 years ahead of Kelowna" (with water planning).

Deja vu all over again.
Boy, oh boy, Kelowna area residents are in for a big surprise...
A gi-normous surprise.


Why?
Because Kelowna Mayor Colin Basran's phrases have been heard before.
They've been heard here in the North Okanagan.

You decide:

"...deliver high quality drinking water to all citizens, at equitable rates over time and will maintain agricultural interests....the plan will create a resilient and robust system serving both citizens and industry well into the future..."

(Blog note:  I don't recall hearing "supported by the Province" here.  Probably because Kelowna is B.C. Premier Christy Clark's constituency...)

and

"...an exercise that began in 2010 ... how best to proceed with the delivery of both domestic and agricultural water..."

and

"...a city-wide integrated system to achieve:
the best lowest cost city-wide solution;
meet Canadian Drinking Water Quality Standards;
(Blog note:  best and lowest cost are mutually exclusive).

flexibility from administrative and operational perspectives;
(Blog note:  from admin and operational...how about those of residents?)

maintain agricultural interests;
(Blog note:  we Greater Vernon Water customers have that phrase tattooed on our bodies!)

...a number of other benefits, including:
water quality, rate, supply and service equity;
(Blog note:  quality = TCMs etc.; rate = ridiculous rate increases annually while consumption continually declines; supply = guilt 'pressure' from OBWB; service equity = "giving" ag their chlorinated--yes chlorinated--water, almost free).

resilient and redundant system that meets domestic and agricultural needs;
efficiency in operations and administration."
(Blog note:  oh, ours is certainly redundant, which by the way is the opposite of efficiency in operations and admin.)

and

"...significant progress made to date ... a key consideration when senior levels of government are trying to determine the allocation of grant funding."
(Blog note:  translation:  T2 might pay for some of it...nice 'carrot').

and

"...technically, water quality issues can be solved independently by each provider, these independent technical solutions will be very costly, creating rate inequity for customers...the more cost effective solution is to create an integrated water system that meets the customers' water service expectations, protects public health, improves the esthetic(sic) qualities of the water, ensures equity in services and costs and creates a resilient and redundant supply system."
(Blog note:  wait until you see GVW's 'combined' solution for domestic and ag...you wanna read about creating rate inequity for customers!!!!  Because ag won't--and doesn't--pay!  Here, the ag 'contribution' approximates 4 per cent of the budget...only 'four'!)

and

"The preliminary numbers show a $95-million cost savings compared to the plan the team reviewed."
(Blog note:  without telling folks what plan the team initially had in mind?  Another 'carrot'...their residents should know that GVW's newest idea is to have three...yes, three...lines.  Cost for that?  We're at about $145 million now...the ink's not dry on that one yet, either, folks.)

and

"...would see drinking water drawn from two main sources; Mission Creek when water quality is good and from Okanagan Lake during the remainder of the year.  This significantly reduces the cost of pumping water from the lake for the majority of the year.
(Blog note:  when it's good...they'll tell residents 'tough bananas' when water quality is 'seldom' good.)

and

"...existing wells and other creeks would also be used as supplemental water sources, helping to defer advanced treatment.
(Blog note:  Existing wells?  good luck with that one because the OBWB will fight the usage of aquifers; and deferring advanced treatment is only for 'x' length of time."  

and

"...the use of  two main water sources greatly reduces the costs of advanced treatment..."
(Blog note:  residents should ask for 'greatly reduces' to be quantified.)

and

"...climate change is the biggest unknown when it comes to confidently planning water supply..."
(Blog note:  no, extravagant consultants are equal to climate change in their impact.)

and

"...best preparation for an uncertain future is to integrate the systems to create resilient and robust networks for both domestic and agricultural water."
(Blog note:  being prepared is not half the battle, despite what the old saying says.)

and

"...allowing lower quality untreated water to be used for agriculture, greatly reducing costs over time."
(Blog note:  I can't even bring myself to comment on this scandalous oft-heard lie).

and

"...supportive of any work that will ensure clean, safe and reliable drinking water for Interior Health residents...know that water system improvements come at a cost."
(Blog note:  the phrase 'any work' is downright scary...and we already know what we're already paying here.)


"Maybe Kelowna residents will have it easier--and cheaper--than us here," Kia would've said, adding "with the area being Christy Clark's constituency and all."

Which equals Kelowna's water plan?  GVW customers know which graphic describes ours.

  

Yogi Berra resurrected.
His sayings anyway.

Anybody notice that Mayor Basran left out the mussels invasion?
Wonder if anybody south of us is interested in what GVW customers pay for water.

Their water plan is available:
The Value Planning Study, found on the City of Kelowna’s website at kelowna.ca,