Staving Off Futility

A review is a review is a review.
Or is it?

Following the second SAC meeting at RDNO, I'm reminded of boss Sewell's comment early in October, that he was "leery of reviewing a(ny) political decision."

But the entire review by SAC members is of material that formed the 2012 Master Water Plan, all of which was presented by GVW engineers and consultants, approved by GVAC Directors who sent it to the Board of Directors who approved it.   On looking at that list, I personally recall that one of the Board members described the entire GVAC system "dysfunctional governance" leading up to the last civic election (yes, the individual was re-elected).  The Master Water Plan is political, no doubt about it.

So far, disappointment among thinking people prevails; a dim light barely casting a glow on a lone sign:  Hang in There.  So people are hanging in there, hoping SAC members--the appointed volunteer reviewers--heard a little bell ringing during the October SAC meeting.  If not, then the review is indeed futile.

Long-time MWP critic, Gyula Kiss, a director of GVAC and a Coldstream councillor, can be excused for being a tad cynical despite no longer having to travel alone down the opposition road.

His thoughts following Thursday's meeting add additional relevancy to his long-held position that this water plan is fraught with folly:

"Interesting how the (biased bureaucratic) strategy is starting to work.

"...the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant is not doing the job!

It provides barely treated water for the $70 million spent on it, most of the treated water goes on crops at the expense of domestic customers, and to make it work at an acceptable level we must spend another $120 million."

After just two meetings it appears that some members are beginning to believe that the Duteau WTP was an OK investment and should be kept. This without ever considering the consequences. Duteau WTP could never work without the filtration plant. That was the order of Interior Health. DCWTP has only a single disinfection: chlorination.  In order to be approved by IH it will need a second disinfection method which was determined by IH to be filtration.

When a contractor screws up, wastes my money and then tells me that, like it or not, that's the job I must accept, it would be OK to say: "well, it was expensive but at least it is doing the job".

But realize one thing:  the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant is not doing the job!

It provides barely treated water for the $70 million spent on it, most of the treated water goes on crops at the expense of domestic customers, and to make it work at an acceptable level we must spend another $120 million.   Yes, an additional $120 million!

And don't forget that the treatment costs will stay with us forever.  In addition we forego all the environmental benefits of using Deer Creek for Kokanee rearing.

Just look at what SAC members are "reviewing":   Bureaucrats have ONLY provided SAC volunteer members with the option first accepted by most politicians, which was then rejected by most politicians and then revived by most politicians. 

"Back then we had two major water systems belonging to two major watersheds.  The Vernon Irrigation District provided all the irrigation water to its customers from the Fraser watershed for over a century. The only thing VID could not do was provide domestic quality water to the 20% of its domestic customers.  Mission Hill provided reasonable quality domestic water from the Columbia system and could have been expanded to provide domestic water to the 20% that were on the VID system." G.Kiss

Let's take a step back.
Pretend we are back in 2001 and review the material that was available for consideration, but today we do have all the information we received over the years (4 or 5 year actual vs projected usage, population numbers, and so on).   Naturally, they should have had all the information before they started designing the MWP.  (blog note:  Even Mike Stamhuis stated "information was sparse".)

Of course, at no time then did they have the albatross--the $30 million Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant--to hold them down (which does weigh on bureaucrats and politicians today). 

Back then we had two major water systems belonging to two major watersheds.  The Vernon Irrigation District provided all the irrigation water to its customers from the Fraser watershed for over a century. The only thing VID could not do was provide domestic quality water to the 20% of its domestic customers.  Mission Hill provided reasonable quality domestic water from the Columbia system and could have been expanded to provide domestic water to the 20% that were on the VID system.

We now know that there were plenty of water licenses available for both systems. We also knew that monies would have to be spent to provide quality water to all of the domestic customers.

The question was essentially:

• Should we spend money to alter the perfect irrigation system, or 

• Should we spend the money to disconnect the domestic customers from the irrigation water system?

So what have we learned from data since then?  The answer would've been a "no brainer".

The $70 million spent to date would have covered most of the costs associated with total separation of the irrigation system.

If you have doubts, check the 2002 MWP (pay attention to the highlighted sections and to page 72, Table 11-1).
   Note:  the financial analyst who prepared the table on page 72 of MWP 2002 is the same individual who estimated the current cost of separation at over $80 million despite the fact that over $12 million worth of separation has already been done.

And during the meeting--just like previously--the presentation by Interior Health contradicted staff's representation of Interior Health.  I had a meeting with Roger Parsonage and Dr. Larder (then head of IH) and they related the same policies to me:  that Interior Health doesn't make the plans for us, they want us to present an acceptable plan that will lead to the legislated water quality."   Gyula Kiss

nine (yes, 9) Options should be reduced to five,

eliminating 4, 8, 6 and 7 which "have no legs"...M. Stamhuis
 

Blog comment:  As potential candidate qualifications for the SAC committee were being determined in July of this year, I recall hearing during a GVAC meeting (and reading in the local newspaper) that bureaucrats planned--abetted by elected reps of Greater Vernon Advisory Committee--to have unbiased people represent various user categories of the soon to be formed SAC.  And that it was likely Gyula Kiss would not be sitting on either side of the discussion table, because of his biases.  Yet existing consultants--buoyed by their employers, the engineering bureaucrats--would form the armada mass on the knowledgeable side of the table...biased to the MWP).  Bureaucrats stated that an unbiased review would then occur, following the referendum defeat where 67 per cent of voters agreed with the biased Mr. Kiss. 

"The information provided on the assumptions leading to the various numbers is a bit sparse."  M. Stamhuis 

So where do the biased (to the MWP) bureaucrats and consultants keep failing?
By forging straight ahead with blinders on!

Even engineer Mike Stamhuis, in a letter to GVW engineers at RDNO as recently as 2013 indicated that the nine (yes, 9) plan Options should be reduced to five.  His letter (link below) provides pros and cons (including non-cost considerations) of the various options, all of which are listed at TM9 link below.

Mike Stamhuis:  "The information provided on the assumptions leading to the various number is a bit sparse."  No kidding!

"It is crystal clear that they recommend total separation" G. Kiss

Gyula Kiss provided important passages that, as he says, can educate anyone reading it.  It is crystal clear that they recommend total separation and they provide detailed financial estimates.  Mr. Kiss provided access to the Addendum and a number of other relevant information, any of which can be obtained by contacting Mr. Kiss.  For example, see GVW manager  Al Cotsworth's presentation of 2012 requesting an annual budget overage of $4 million for MWP projects over and above the annual budget (slide 50 of 50).

"With the increasing requirement for drinking water treatment,

it does not make economic sense to treat the water going to irrigation.

 Separation of the existing combined system into separate domestic water

 and irrigation water systems will allow the appropriate water

quality to be applied to the end use."  Addendum MWP 2004

"Once separation of the combined water distribution system

 is complete,  this plant will only provide water to the

 separated domestic water distribution system."

"Agricultural separation completed before filtration plant

 1 Smaller filtration plant to operate"

Addendum MWP 2004

"There are two major changes from the original MWP.

 The first is that there will be two water treatment plants

 (one on the Kalamalka Lake supply and one on the

 Duteau Creek source), instead of the single central plant.

 The second is that the separation of the

combined water distribution system will be phased over a longer period.

 This means that all the water in the combined system will be treated

 to drinking water quality in the early years of the plan.

 Full separation will occur in the second phase of the plan."

Addendum MWP 2004 

"...Swan Lake, Goose Lake area....

This will allow a downsizing of the new water treatment plant,

 since the full initial capacity will not be required once separation
of the combined water distribution system is complete.

At this point, it is expected that separation will be completed in the

 2011 to 2021 time frame."

"The original MWP was a sound direction that would have accomplished the regional water goals in a short time frame. Unfortunately, without

 senior government funding, this scheme would put a significant

 financial burden on existing domestic water customers."

Addendum MWP 2004

"...new direction accomplishes the goal of reducing the capital expenditures

 in the initial phase of construction to an amount that can be funded

 without a significant water rate increase."

Addendum MWP 2004

"The two key elements of the plan were the separation of 

irrigation and domestic water systems in the short term

 and the construction of a single, central water treatment plant

 to provide treated water to the domestic water distribution system."

Addendum MWP 2004

  

Resources:
2002 Master Water Plan is here.
2004 Master Water Plan Addendum is here.
2012 Master Water Plan (see individual Technical Memoranda, (1-9) below.
2013 Mike Stamhuis letter to GVW on Options is here.

2015 List of Adopted GVAC Motions (halfway down page of this June 8/15 blog post).

TM1:  Summary prepared for SAC.  Domestic and Agricultural Demand Forecast is here.
TM1:  Domestic and Agricultural Demand Forecast is here.

TM2:  Summary prepared for SAC.  Evaluation of Water Supply Source is here.
TM2:  Evaluation of Water Supply Source is here.
TM3:  Summary prepared for SAC:  Source Storage and Supply is here.
TM3:  Source Storage and Supply is here.
TM4:  Domestic Water System Analysis is here.
TM5:  Independent Agricultural System is here.
TM6:  Water Conservation Strategies is here.
TM7:  Water Treatment is here.
TM8:  GVW Financial Issues and Principles to Support the Master Water Plan is here.
TM9:  System Separation Option (9 Options) Analysis is here.   (Note that Mike Stamhuis stated in his
            2013 letter to RDNO (see third research link above) that Options 4,8, 6 and 7 "have no legs" 
            and should be removed.)
TM10:  Financial Plan is here.

GVW Water Restrictions are here.


"Maybe review was incorrect...CCMWP should've asked for an autopsy of the water plan," suggests Kia.