A Couple of Letters

Conservation incentive?
Nope.

Increased water rates--and even fuel prices--are no incentive for wealthy folks to conserve water, or fuel for that matter! 
Simple as that.

Increased prices merely hurt low--and middle--income families/seniors on fixed incomes, despite this letter writer's suggestion:

"Water Rates (letter to Morning Star editor, October 11, 2015):

Regarding Joel van der Molen's letter ("Water rates spark a question", Sept 23), what Mr. van der Molen describes as a graduated fee structure for gas prices is in fact exactly what we need.

In this era of accelerating climate change, the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption is becoming more pressing than ever.

Arguably, the only way to curb our consumption is by raising the price at the pump.

A graduated fee structure is used for water in the Okanagan, and it is working:  people use less water when it costs more.

The system of base fees, tier pricing, and reduced drive days that Mr. van der Molen describes would work admirably in reducing our fuel consumption.

Let me turn your question around:  If we can accept this for water, why wouldn't we accept it for fuel?"

     Ward Strong                          

"What a bunch of nonsense," says Kia, adding "the wealthy--and their housekeepers--don't even recycle, let alone restrict journeys by automobile and plane...increased prices affect them not a bit." 

Mr. Strong needs to give some credit to the low--and middle--income families who do care about climate change as much as the prices!  

"Master Water Plan:

The Morning Star editorial of Sept. 20, Water plan scrutiny needed, says some Greater Vernon Water users may be disappointed and frustrated that Gyula Kiss was not appointed to the RDNO stakeholders advisory committee.

They need not be.  He himself said it was expected, and he's not going away.

I also applied for inclusion to the committee and was rejected.  I can vouch for Gyula's comment that 'dissent is not appreciated within the regional district.'

My expectations were low from the outset.  When I put on their application that I was qualified to professionally evaluate technical memoranda and capable of offering opinion on best practices and alternatives, and to endorse or challenge views of SAC advisors, I knew my chances of being included were small.

When David Sewell, the CAO of RDNO says, 'It's not an attempt to silence critics, it's to engage and walk through in a reasoned manner what we've done, what we haven't done and why the master plan is where it is...,' it sounds like his goal is to indoctrinate rather than solicit advice.

Hopefully the first agenda item of the new SAC will be to discuss and confront some of the list of assumptions developed by RDNO staff.

RDNO politicians have stated the committee meetings will be open to the public.  I'll be there.

Like Gyula, I'm not going away either and will continue to offer my somewhat radical opinions to successful applicant Terry Mooney, of the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, and others."

Dana Mills 

"Being present--but not allowed to speak at SAC or for that matter, GVAC meetings--doesn't allow for a fruitful exchange of ideas either," offers Kia.

                       

 

Because the public's rejection of the $70 million borrowing referendum was too silent.