Integration versus Amalgamation

What's in a word?
The potential for success or failure, in retrospect.
And we all know that hindsight is 20/20.

An interesting and well-written story recently appeared in the Kelowna Daily Courier, written by reporter Ron Seymour.

The story's clincher, in my opinion, was this sentence:  "...And Victoria has mandated the City of Kelowna must formally endorse any multi-million-dollar grant request from an independent water system before it will even be considered, and that surely won't happen if city officials believe integration is a better, more prudent approach."

The gist of the story is that Kelowna's new mayor, Colin Basran, said last week that "...(Kelowna) wants to work with the province and the irrigation districts to develop a long-term plan that leads to an integrated and resilient water system that delivers clean drinking water to all citizens at equitable rates and offers a sustainable supply for agriculturalists."

Let's hope Basran is aware of how GVW has screwed up the North Okanagan water system by chlorinating nearly 90 per cent of agricultural water.
But I digress.

Huh?
Integration?

Integration, basically, means "making a whole of parts...a combining".
Amalgamation basically means the same thing.

Obvious now is that the many proponents of Amalgamation several years ago of our over-governed areas used the wrong word.  They should have promoted Integration, not Amalgamation.

Making a whole of parts...a combining.

Or could it be that Colin Basran is on a power-trip, wanting the amalgamation....er.....integration of water systems to occur on his watch.

"So...had residents used the word 'integration' of communities following KPMG's 'service review' of the City of Vernon," asks an incredulous Kia, "we might have reduced bureaucracy by 60 per cent after all?"

Say it ain't so.

Oh...and don't screw up, Mr. Basran, by looking at GVW for any guidance.
They're not role models, judging by residents' rage over our area's horrendous water costs.