OBWB's Congratulations?

Maybe it was lost in the mail.
Or the press release is being walked over to our local newspaper.
Surely the Okanagan Basin Water Board's congratulations to Greater Vernon Water users is uppermost in their minds.

Or maybe not.

It wasn't very long ago that our local newspaper published a chastisement from OBWB about water usage here, still on their website today.

“The Okanagan is a very dry place. We have less fresh water available per person in the Okanagan Basin than anywhere else in Canada. And yet, the average Okanagan resident uses more than two times as much water as the average Canadian.” - Anna Warwick Sears, OBWB Executive Director

And on it went: 

"On average, Okanagan residents use 675 litres of water per person, per day – year round, on their residential properties.  This is more than twice the Canadian average (329 litres), and much higher than that of other countries."

Joel van der Molen asked in a 2013 letter to the newspaper:  "How do they come up with their numbers?"
If the OBWB's water usage numbers didn't even remotely reflect his family's usage, how could they reflect the usage of most other residents?

But apart from embarrassing residents of the North Okanagan in newspapers across the nation that all seemed to carried the story, maybe OBWB's goal wasn't so much noble altruism or water conservation.
Maybe they had an ulterior motive that relied on skewing water usage numbers.
In other words, intentionally misrepresenting the numbers to suit another goal.

Perhaps the question would be easier to answer if it were rephrased "Why do they come up with their numbers?"
To prevent application for and development of the Okanagan Lake water source for Greater Vernon!
It's an entirely plausible answer.

Hindsight's clear vision now shows the OBWB as they continue with their goal of  "building bridges" with local governments.
And we all know that GVW wants their pet -- the overbuilt Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant -- to continue to be used versus receiving a water license on Okanagan Lake for domestic water, and having to separate all those agricultural lines from domestic...
And having to mothball a reasonably new plant--built on spurious and inflated data--that received $13.9 in Federal funding alone.

To learn "Who does the OBWB serve?" it's worth looking back into their history.


Back in 1969, someone from one of three (south, central and north) regional districts (that initiated the formation of the OBWB), apparently said: "no administrative machinery yet exists to provide the means by which local problems can be properly addressed and identified and the necessary corrective and preventative measures developed and enforced.  The Okanagan Basin Water Board should be established to fulfill this function." 

So in 1970 the OBWB was born, "instituted as a collaboration of the three Okanagan regional districts to provide leadership on water issues spanning the valley."
Today, their 58-page 2014 Water Management Program Review still contains that anonymous quotation on page 3 of the Executive Summary.

Since 2006, it is said, "the Okanagan Basin Water Board has assessed the status of water resources -- identifying priorities for water management; forming partnerships with all levels of government and local stakeholders; and delivering important information to decision makers.  The OBMW helps local governments prepare for impacts on water from population growth, development, and climate change.  Given the diversity of water interests in the valley, and increasing fiscal constraints, it is essential to build bridges between groups and avoid duplication of efforts."

"Over the next four years, B.C. will be rolling out regulations for the new Water Sustainability Act.  These changes will have sweeping implications for all aspects of Okanagan water management.  This program provides a mechanism for local governments to respond and adapt to the new regulations, and, if possible, to shape them to the needs of the valley."

Was Mr. van der Molen invited to become a "local stakeholder"?
No of course not.
They haven't stooped to the resident level.
The OBWB was busy "forming partnerships with all levels of government."
Including the bureaucracy at Greater Vernon Water at the RDNO.

In the meantime, residents here obeyed Stage 1 water restrictions imposed by GVW...but is this all really about water conservation?
Many people think not.
So has the OBWB reflected what residents have achieved?
Have they done press releases of congratulations?

Nope.
Today, it's still on OBWB's website! 
That we use so much more water than anyone else.

Proof of the OBWB's pervasive influence was evident at the second SAC meeting October 22nd when a hydrologist with Summit Environmental Consultants of Vernon quoted material from the Okanagan Water Demand Project (from the OBWB) where the Okanagan Basin was described as:
 "a narrow strip that spans from Armstrong, British Columbia, Canada to the US border and includes five main lakes – Okanagan, Kalamalka-Wood, Skaha, Vaseux and Osoyoos – and surrounding mountains. The Okanagan Basin includes all the land that feeds water to our big lakes, and is almost 200 km in length and 8,000 km2 in area. Kelowna, Vernon, Penticton and Osoyoos all lie within the Okanagan Basin." 

The Okanagan Basin Water Board's logo collection...Canada's federal logo was inadvertently lopped at the right by blog.

 

The hydrologist was introduced as one of the three engineers that assisted in developing the Master Water Plan.  Since so much of OBWB's data appears to have been used to form the 2012 Master Water Plan, let's see what the OBWB's concerns today are, since updating residents' actual usage numbers appears to not be a priority.

• Is our water over-allocated?
• How do we protect groundwater?
• How will we share during shortages?
• How do we reduce risks to water quality?
• How can we be more water efficient?
• How much water do we have?
• What does the future hold?

There is another reason for this lengthy focus on the Okanagan Basin Water Board.

Shudder to think:  Could the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, with their request for an independent review of the Plan, have applied to the wrong people by going to Vernon and District of Coldstream councillors, and the Greater Vernon Advisory Council at RDNO?
Should CCMWP instead have made their presentation to the Okanagan Basin Water Board? 

In other words, does the OBWB's omnipresence justify a renewed focus by CCMWP to the real decision makers?
That question remains...

OBWB website graphic

Back to the OBWB's shaming of Okanagan residents for water consumption levels.

They need to have a look at Greater Vernon Water's annual reports, years 2011-2014, which summarizes water usage (predicted versus actual) as this table shows:

Courtesy: G.Kiss

"Total yearly consumption for Greater Vernon Water between 2009 and 2011 fluctuated between 22,000 megalitres (ML) and 27,000 ML per year," confirms GVW.  Yet look at the difference--for the purposes of developing a Master Water Plan--between projected water usage (demand) and actual consumption! 
Holy cow...in each year, GVW's consultants overestimated demand by between 52 and 65 per cent!

So maybe those projected numbers somehow suited OBWB's purpose of overestimating per capita usage per day.  As stated earlier, the OBWB still today on its website retains the incorrect per capita usage numbers, and GVW only recently updated usage numbers to actual (from projected) in reply to numerous questions.  And remember that the OBWB today is asking (above) "is our water over-allocated?" (meaning: do more allocations exist than are actually needed/used?  Ahem!!!!!) 

To achieve the most accurate number representing per capita usage per day,

divide the total 2014 GVW consumption (5,929,000,000 liters) by 365 days;

 divide the result by the estimated population of Greater Vernon (55,000),

 and the result is 295 liters/day

 (somewhat "off" as ICI--Institutional, Commercial, Industrial category--remains included).

It wasn't long before Greater Vernon Water officials had to report the truth:

The average residential customer's water consumption

was 274 liters per day.

  And consumption continues to decrease.

Let's look at Coldstream's consumption over two years, evidencing a slight consumption increase, shown in this table that includes revenues:

Courtesy:  G.Kiss

But look at the revenue increase ($526,635.) from Coldstream alone, representing a larger Base fee increase than Consumption ($281,444 vs. $245,191)!

"If allowed to continue," suggests Kia, "GVW will soon achieve their entire annual budget on base fees alone!"   And adds:  "...with consumption fees then relegating GVW to a for-profit organization, making them ineligible for tri-partite grants," Kia concludes in laughter.

Nonsense.
GVW has the OBWB as a partner.

...while Joel waits for his letter of congratulations.




OBWB reference documents:

The 76-page Irrigation Water Demand Model is here.
The  21-page  Okanagan Water Demand Model Summary is here.
The OBWB's Agriculture Demand Water Model "was not found on this server".