Saying Wayyyyyy More Than Necessary

But the letter does encompass opinions that may be shared by members of the public.

I'm kinda betwixt 'n between on this one.

Today's letter to the editor by Dana Mills follows:

"Coming clean on water issue:

I'm a member of the Citizens for Change(sic) to the Master Water Plan group.  The Morning Star column by Richard Rolke raised some very good points and questions.  I'll give my personal point of view on some of them.  I'm not speaking on behalf of the CCMWP; that's Terry Mooney's job.

I mention this because the citizens' group is a very loose association.  So far we're quite informal but might have to change as more and more people want to join.  Some of us are technical, some political, some radical, some financial, some managerial and entrepreneurial, some environmental, some have public health concerns, but all are genuinely interested because of gut feelings that things are wrong here.

My views aren't supported by the entire group.  I'm one of the few (so far) who does not want to shut down the Duteau water treatment plant, but I'm with the majority who believe it should not be further expanded.  At least not in directions that the current Master Water Plan proposes to go.  I lean towards low-cost, passive and environmentally friendly methods of potable water treatment; a shift in trend that will occur more and more over the next couple of generations.  All it will take is public pressure and a little more research to speed this up, though.

The process leading to the failed MWP referendum (all the detail focused workshps, etc.) was developed by a select panel comprised of politicians, bureaucrats, and hired consultants.  The special interest of agriculture was also continuously represented and other select ddelegations were periodically invited.

In the column, Councillor Cunningham is quoted, "We can't assume one group is speaking for all of the community."  She's absolutely right, but does she actually think the politicians on the panel knew the wishes of the majority when they developed the current MWP?  Obviously they didn't.  The referendum was defeated for whatever reasons.

Not much information is made readily available to the public about these technical reports as they are being discussed.  The politicians involved really had no idea if their constituents actually supported the directions that they were taking in developing their master water plan.

The first and most important of their discussions were about which water sources shold be secured and treated, but public input to the technical plans was open only after almost all decisions had already been made.

Going forward, you must make the best with what you have.

The Citizens for Change(sic) is no more or less relevant than any other group or individual, but may be able to evolve into an umbrella organization which really can represent the wishes of the broader sectors.

Focused on one issue, and (if nothing else) continuously auditing the decision-making processes leading to a revised master water plan, we may be able to sway delegated politicians if we feel they are once again being pushed off course.  As the bureaucrats and consultants do their thing, we would certainly issue general progress reports through various methods and persist in soliciting and accepting all feedback.  Remember, what happens now continues to leave a significant legacy.

If I was to individually approach the RDNO and ask to be included in formal discussions leading to a revised master water plan, they would say no.  After all, who am I?  They are the experts they will say, and the politicians they select are there to make sure the wishes of the majority populace are paramount.  Ratepayer wishes are foremost, aren't they Ms. Cunningham?

If any established group was to ask the same of the RDNO it wold be much more difficult for them to say no without incurring public backlash.  Just a thought and, of course, degrees of participation would need to be vetted to avoid malicious disruption.

So...Join us, friend us, or form your own group.  Get involved as an individual.  Let your views be known.  Write letters to the editor, call in to a radio station, e-mail your politicians, establish a blog, or link us on Facebook.  Establish your own Facebook account.  Talk with your friends and acquaintances.

By all means make use of our provincial and federal resources too.  Say what's on your mind even if it disagrees with my position.

Better yet, go to the source and make presentations to Vernon, Coldstream, and even RDNO councils.  Hope you have a thick skin, though.  Their initial response will be vicious.   Believe me, I know."

Dana Mills               

"Said he wasn't speaking on behalf of the CCMWP, and then divulges the group's composition, its future which would include 'issuing general progress reports'," offers Kia, incredulously.

Wow.
 
Very loose, huh?