Newspaper's Subterfuge?

It simply couldn't be an oversight.

The local newspaper--Vernon's Morning Star--has had six weeks to "find space" to print the carefully-considered and intelligent questions that have arisen for the SAC committee to review. 
Granted, a federal election took place, following what seemed to be a never-ending campaign period.
It got space.
To the nines.

You'd have thought that by now--after one thousand residents signed the petition originated by Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan--the newspaper would've done the public a service by at least printing the questions that have arisen for the SAC Committee to review.

Especially when GVW have admitted they haven't done a good job of communicating.
Especially when Reporter Rolke is present at SAC meetings, with the third meeting coming up next week.

"Don't complain.  Protest!"

Maya Angelou

Hell, even a little boxed frame monthly under Current Events entitled SAC Deliberations wouldn't take up much space.  One or two questions each issue easily cover what arises at the monthly meetings.  Residents would soon become accustomed to clicking on the Morning Star's link for the cut-n-pasted bureaucrat reply.  Or link to RDNO's agenda for the answers. 

This isn't rocket science, editors and publishers!

Or is the Morning Star--by omission--admitting collusion with GVW bureaucrats and elected officials?
Out of sight, out of mind?

So we'll print the questions here, and provide links to the pages on which GVW engineers' answers can be found.

Q 1: How much water are we treating, from what sources, and do they service potable or non-potable customers?  Reply on page 10 of 22 is here.


Q 2: Total cost of treating, distributing and management of the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant and Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant?  Reply on page 11 of 22 is here.

Q 3:  Difference of operations cost between agricultural and domestic customers?  Reply is on pages 11 and 12 of 22 here.

Q 4:  Are domestic customers paying for agricultural water?  Reply is on page 12 of 22 here. 

Q 5:  Can the SAC get a comparison of rates between other water utilities beyond the comparison with Kelowna and Penticton?  What about other relevant factors such as are these utilities strictly urban, do they have agricultural customers, what is their source (lake, creek or wells)?  Reply is on page 12 of 22 here.

Q 6:  What about using Okanagan Lake as a water source for GVW?  Reply is on page 12 of 22 here.

Q 7:  What is potential to get grants?  Reply is on pages 12 and 13 of 22 here.


Q 8:  Are(sic) the potential for zebra and quagga mussels addressed in the MWP?  Reply is on page 13 of 22 here.

Q 9:  How many times in each of the past four years have the Duteau Creek domestic water users been on the Kale Lake water source?  Reply is on page 13 of 22 here.

Q 10:  How many times in each of the past four years have the Kal Lake domestic water users been on the Duteau Creek water source?  Reply is on pages 13 and 14 of 22 here.

Q 11:  In the GVW system, can you tell us exactly how much treated water is required and how much agricultural water is required?  I don't mean what we are providing now.  I just wish the figures as to what each area requires...residential as opposed to agricultural?  Reply is on page 14 of 22 here.

Q 12:  To that end, how much treated water do we really need to provide for?  I am asking because at initial meeting it was said that it was cheaper to provide agriculture in the GVW with treated water as opposed to non-treated!  If so, we need an explanation as to why that is more feasible?  Reply is on page 14 of 22 here.

Q 13:  From reading TM1, I am to believe that the agricultural demands for water (are) not increasing.  Is that reason because it is found to be cheaper to provide both residential and agricultural properties with the same treated water?  Or is it because we expect no further agricultural growth?  Reply is on page 14 of 22 here.

Q 14:  The TM1 also allows for same growth right through 2016.  Then more demand predicted from 2021 to 2052.  This is primarily residential with very minimal (if none)(sic) agricultural growth.  That leads me back to my original question.  Shall we simply concentrate on providing treated water to the GVW from this year on and recognize that the small amount non-treated we do provide to agriculture is cheaper to have their water treated than creating/maintaining a separate non treated system for agriculture?  Reply is on page 14 of 22 here.



Q 15:  With respect to educating the public, will this committee be working toward developing a clear education plan so all residents can vote in confidence, with available information provided in lay mans'(sic) terms?  Reply is on page 14 and 15 of 22 here.


Q 16:  Can it be explained once again the criteria/process where GVRD requires a referendum for water supply/utilities?  I believe it has something to do with whether or not they had the funds initially to borrow?  Please clarify.  Reply is on page 15 of 22 here.

Agriculture and Domestic Water rates in other jurisdictions?

Pages 16 and 17 here Agricultural Water Rates (Appendix A). 

Pages 18 through 22 here Domestic Water Rates (Appendix B).

Additional resource:  List of Assumptions is on pages 7-10 of 32 here.



"Why would the newspaper even risk infuriating a minimum of 3 per cent of their purported circulation of 32K?" asks Kia, adding "I bet it's closer to 30 per cent who want those answers."

A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve,

 not by the desire to beat others. Ayn Rand

 
Come on Rolke.
Do it.