SAC meeting October 1, 2015

A layperson's view of what SAC members received.

Stakeholder Advisory Committee members at their first meeting received a summary of three technical memoranda at the first meeting:  TM1, TM2, and TM3 that form part of the Master Water Plan 2012.

The three memoranda summaries, accompanied by historical water data, are here. 

On page 30 of 32, this sentence piqued my interest:

"Okanagan Lake has been identified as the best water source to meet the long term growth within the service area of GVW once the water licenses of Kalamalka Lake and Duteau Creek watershed are fully used. Recommendations indicate that GVW should apply for a 50,000 ML/yr reserve for future use."

So why doesn't GVW apply for a water licence on Okanagan Lake???? 

It seems that GVW itself disqualifies its eligibility for an Okanagan Lake water licence.  And not only because Okanagan Lake water wouldn't be needed until long-term growth (2052) was required.

So how do they prevent being eligible?...consider the statement on TM3:  "storage is a key element to understanding how much water GVW has available for use."  

• GVW does not fully utilize the storage capacity on Duteau for which it has license (see TM3 for more details).
• Kalamalka Lake is fully allocated now...any further water requirements would be reserved for fisheries by the Ministry.
•  This year's Stage 1 water restrictions required a 10 per cent reduction in consumption, so there was below normal drawdown of water in storage.
•  TM 3 details "how much total storage licenses GVW holds, how much water GVW can currently store and examines opportunities to increase storage to support growth within the GVW service area."
• A comparison of current and future water demands was completed to assess if increasing storage is required.

So does GVW itself prevent eligibility for an Okanagan Lake water licence? 

It appears to me that the answwer is "probably, because they haven't maximized water storage."

In retrospect, could this indicate that GVW knows that Duteau should/should have remained for irrigation (non potable) customers only, with a larger Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant built.  GVW accepts that agricultural irrigation is not expected to increase noticeably in the future.   

The Master Water Plan's consultants recommended that GVW should apply for an Okanagan Lake licence for the future.  Not in the future, for the future.  Presumably to apply now!  Yet how can they apply for an Okanagan Lake water licence when they haven't maximized the existing licences?

"Not to apply in the future; rather, apply now for the future," suggests Kia.

 

Just a layperson's little bell ringing...