Water Bureaucrats Dig out Data

GVW bureaucrats are answering important questions posed during the Master Water Plan review/deliberations of the SAC committee.   By the very nature of the questions asked, this committee--after its inaugural meeting--evidences that a thoughtful and substantive review of the 2012 Master Water Plan may indeed be in the making.

"Nobody objects to supporting agriculture,

 but not with treated--and soon to be filtered--water

 for irrigation of farms and acreages."  A commenter

At its worst, the review by SAC verifies the machinations of the GVW bureaucracy to support the plan they have chosen and advised politicians to implement.

One example is that actual water usage and operations/maintenance costs are available for the four year period from 2009 through 2012, yet data supporting the Master Water Plan retain the projected numbers.

This blog entry provides this link to the Oct. 22 SAC committee Agenda in its entirety, however, questions posed--and bureaucrats' answers--are featured.

The entire list of SAC questions begins on page 10 of 22 at the above link.
However, only Questions 2, 3, 4 and 6 will be commented on:


QUESTION 2:  Total cost of treating, distributing and management of the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant and Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant?

GVW Answer:  on pg 9 of the link to Agenda, entitled "Summary of Water Treatment Cost per Megalitre"

A Reviewer's Noteworthy Comment:  The average treatment costs at Duteau and Mission Hill are presented, providing the average cost of treatment in ML (megalitres).  In 2011, one ML at Duteau costs $127.27 while at the Mission Hill treatment plant one ML costs $76.

However, only about 25 per cent of Duteau is domestic, so in order to get a clear picture of the cost differences the $127.27 must be divided by 0.25 ($509).  Divide 509 by 76 and the true cost is apparent:  1 ML at Duteau Creek Water Treatment plant costs 6.7 times more than at Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant.

QUESTION 3:  Difference of operating cost between agricultural and domestic customers?

GVW Answer:  A detail(sic) cost analysis of operational costs between agricultural and domestic customers was completed in TM8 of the MWP.   Appendices A, B, C1and C2 provides details of the analysis. The results are presented in TM8 – Table 4.1: (on page 10 of 20 at the linked Agenda)

A Reviewer's Noteworthy Comment:  Agriculture pays about 5 cents per cubic meter, both for treated and untreated water.  Agricultural revenues, based on data presented, are as follows:

2012:  $518,550

2013:  $430,800

2014:  $396,200

2015:  $423,100

QUESTION 4:   Are domestic customers paying for agricultural water?

GVW Answer:  Yes, as noted above in Question 3, there is a shortfall between agriculture revenue compared to expenses; therefore the difference is funded by domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional customers. One of the guiding principles to the formation of GVW in 2003 was that agriculture would not pay for upgrades required for improved water quality and that agricultural rates would remain competitive with other communities within the Okanagan Basin. The agricultural water rates are set annually based on a review of other agricultural rates within the Okanagan Basin to ensure the agricultural sector can retain financial stability within the valley.

A Reviewer's Noteworthy Comment:  No-one resents subsidizing Agricultural customers, but not by providing agriculture with treated water for irrigation.

QUESTION 6:  What about using Okanagan Lake as water source for GVW?

Answer:  Use of Okanagan Lake as the primary water source for GVW is examined in TM9 of the MWP as Option 6. See TM9 of a detailed discussion of this option. Discussion with the SAC will be completed when TM9 is reviewed at a future meeting.

A Reviewer's Noteworthy Comment:  Option 6 deals with Okanagan Lake.  However, when you check the total costs associated with Option 6, you note the filtration costs scheduled for 2042 included in the current costs.  Borrowed money is repaid in 20 years.  Savings in treatment costs will be quite significant over a 30 year period.

For more details on Option 6, primary water supply from Okanagan Lake, it's important to also learn  Mike Stamhuis' assessment of Okanagan Lake's potential as a primary water source.

Option 6 -- Complete Separation -- Okanagan Lake Source with Filtration Deferral -- This option has overvalued the Operations and Maintenance cost of the intake by not crediting the savings of mothballing the Kal Lake Intake.  This would reduce the option's NPV (net present value) to approximately $142 million.  If filtration deferral could be achieved for the life of the analysis the NPV of this option would be $108 million -- substantially the most cost effective.  It could be argued that this achievement may be more likely if we retained the Kal Lake intake.  In this scenario the NPV of this option would be about $118 million.  (highlighting:  blog author)

Michael Stamhuis 

 The link to Michael Stamhuis' complete 2013 assessment of Options, including Okanagan Lake, is here.

Another Reviewer's Noteworthy Comments, general in nature, but lucid indeed:

"One observation is that it might be useful to ask that data on non agricultural water be separated into domestic and ICI. I’m not sure that combining them serves a useful purpose given that domestic users tend to be rather piddling individually whereas ICI users such as Okanagan Springs and the hospital, I expect, are rather humongous.
 
As well, I think more data would be useful. For instance, I did not see anything to indicate where the water the city sprays on parks/boulevards what-have-you is tabulated/costed, nor did I see anything about “lost” water due to leakage/thievery what-have-you and to what or to whom it is assigned ibid per water for fire suppression, etc. These are not small amounts and should be spread across all users as generally required water usages?  Same with annual/semiannual flushing of waterlines. 
Very clearly, from my optic, the information provided clearly indicates that the location of the Kal Lake intake for the Mission hill plant is less than optimal for 3 reasons:
1) turbidity issues from rapid spring melt/ run-off flows from being so close to and within the turbulence upheaval of the outlet of Coldstream Creek delta,
2) being too closely located and subject to  contamination by milfoil removal at several times of the year  around the shallows off the head of the lake, and
3) ibid point #1, turbidity caused by heavy spates of rain in the Coldstream Creek watershed at various times of the year causing excessive turbidity around the shallow intakes.
 
What the  information provided did not cover was two very germane questions; namely, a plan to re-locate the Kal lake intake to a more beneficial location and the costs/benefits/ramifications of doing so.
 
My reading of the data suggests Greater Vernon water users are exemplary in their use of water. From the data provided it is clear that we, at an average per resident rate of only 274 liters per day, are far below the 675 liters per day ballyhooed by the Okanagan Basin Water Board. Obviously, people do respond to increasingly higher water rates both quickly and drastically and with unforeseen consequences on GVW projected rate income. Separating the ICI water from the domestic category would highlight that even more." 

"The Okanagan Basin Water Board misrepresenting the per capita water consumption is glaring," says Kia, adding "considering that news media all across Canada picked it up."

The OBWB should be ashamed of using bureaucrats' tactics.

Note:  The 87-page TM9, System Separation Option Analysis is located here.


Note:  The 51-page TM8, GVW Financial Issues and Principles to Support the Master Water Plan is located here.

Note:  The comparison of domestic water rates in the Okanagan/Thompson/Shuswap is provided in Addendum B, the last 5 pages here.

Note:  The comparison of agricultural water rates in the Okanagan/Thompson/Shuswap is provided in Addendum A, pages 15 and 16 here.