Third SAC Meeting

...and it was by far the most interesting.
Probably because the material that the SAC committee is reviewing is now approaching the "meat and potatoes" of the Master Water Plan.

But first, something's been gnawing at me...the sheer number of revisions to Technical Memoranda before, presumably, the documents were felt by GVW to state what they wanted stated.
Only the walls of RDNO know if that's true.

So what? 
Nine consultant memoranda had a total of 55 revisions before they were accepted by GVW!
That's what!


Just glance at this list:   
TM#1 Domestic and Agricultural Water Demand Forecast had six revisions and reasons, provided on page 2 of 38 here.
TM#2 Evaluation of Water Supply Source had six revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 3 of 25 here.
TM#3 Source Storage and Supply had five revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 2 of 33 here.
TM#4 Domestic Water System Analysis had six revisions and reasons, provided on page 3 of 60 here.
TM#5 Independent Agricultural System had six revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 2 of 73 here.
TM#6 Water Conservation Strategies, had six revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 2 of 35 here.
TM#7 Water Treatment, had five revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 2 of 46 here.
TM#8 GVW Financial Issues and Principles to Support the Master Water Plan, had nine revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 2 of 51 here.
TM#9 System Separation Option Analysis, had six revisions, no reasons given, provided on page 3 of 90 here.

All those revisions.  
With only two TMs stating the reasons for revisions!

It seemed as though GVW could've written the TMs themselves if they knew more than consultants.


Back to the third SAC meeting:


Rod MacLean, professional engineer with Associated Engineering gave an outstanding presentation.  He was open to ideas, rare for a consultant.  Rarer yet for GVW engineers.   This meeting's discussions made some people wonder why SAC committee member Terry Mooney's motion last month (to move TM9 to an earlier review slot) was denied.

This meeting reviewed TM2, TM3 and TM5 (the following links give whole--not GVW summarized--memoranda).  TM2, the 25-page Evaluation of Water Supply Sources; TM3, the 33-page Source Storage and Supply; TM5, the 33-page Independent Agricultural System.

Rod Maclean commented on a wide array of water supply alternatives, likely because at this four-year mark since the Master Water Plan was developed, nothing was written in stone.  Probably also because several years of consumption data were now available.  Perhaps even he now has second thoughts about adding chlorinated water onto agricultural lands from an overbuilt water treatment plant called Duteau.  Just a guess, but I think it's possible. 

He summarized the licensing and detailed ground sources of water as well as the hydrology of the Duteau water source and others, including their vulnerabilities.  He explained the potential of the Gold/Paradise source as its higher elevation provides a longer snow-melt into storage on the Aberdeen Plateau.  Rod explained that if it's decided that Duteau Creek Water Treatment plan should be mothballed, then raising the reservoir dam by four metres isn't necessary.  Spillways would also affect flood protection for Lumby and Lavington.

Using reclaimed water for agriculture was questioned, and Rod cautioned that the Province of B.C. has not given approval to reclaimed water being used on food crops...so far, only forage is approved.  A tongue-in-cheek comment was heard:  "yet we're already eating fruits and vegetables brought in from California, whose reclaimed water is applied to those export crops".

While Rod MacLean agreed that Okanagan Lake water quality is among the best of all sources, the north east end of the lake--where a GVW intake pipe would be located--needs to be looked at.  A 2005 study is the most recent done on the lake.  The water "residence" time in Okanagan Lake is given at 53 years, meaning the entire water volume of the lake changes only once every 53 years, easily the longest period of time for all area sources.

And who knew that GVW had applied for a 50,000 megalitre water license on Okanagan Lake?  Zee Marcolin stated that GVW is in touch with the Province every two weeks on the topic, yet no-one's come to the table yet.  Rod MacLean explained that's because this area has sufficient water for its population, from various sources, and that until our population increases substantially, or another critical reason, the "first in/first out" applicant would be ahead of the North Okanagan's need for the source.  It is now understood that there are other areas of the province whose water supply is scarce or critical, and we'll not get staff time until urgent areas are considered first.

But neither Zee Marcolin nor Dale McTaggart of GVW made any reference to the transfer of licenses we already hold!  And unfortunately, interbasin and physical water transfers aren't examined until TM-9.

SAC member--and Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan chair--Terry Mooney asked about reclassifying user categories for agricultural water rates according to the newly-minted Water Sustainability Act, and regionally, the South East Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID).  (The 98-page SEKID Drinking Water Watershed Source Assessment report is here.)  Of particular note is their 4-page study: "Does Pricing Water Reduce Agricultural Demand?" found here.   Districts have varying classifications and eligibility, and Zee Marcolin advised GVW would be addressing the issue (whether classifications should be adjusted) with the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

The most encouraging aspect -- in addition to Rod being willing to discuss the possibility that Duteau Creek Water Treatment plant might be "mothballed" and used only for agriculture -- is that he states Okanagan Lake for domestic water is entirely "doable".  In addition to that, the use of reclaimed water--albeit not yet on food crops--was also doable because most of the infrastructure is already in place.  GVAC Chair Juliette Cunningham stated "the city of Vernon is already looking at that."

As mentioned earlier, the meeting was informative and of great interest.
It was actually very positive, indicating that opportunities for improvement exist.

Just like 55 revisions (demanded by GVW) to 9 TMs, changes can and do occur.

Only three things were negative:

1.  On exiting the building, a SAC member was overheard to say: "Seventy million dollars now doesn't sound so high..."  

2.  And, folks, the more water we conserve through our existing systems, the higher the cost is for treating each unit of water...each a cubic meter.    Ask yourself what is the point if your shade trees die?  Water them! 

3.  The consultant was asked a question about costs since the 4-year old Master Water Plan was developed.  He indicated that prices "are still current", indicating massively-inflated numbers -- and the accompanying 30% contingencies -- were submitted for the 2012 Master Water Plan.  Ahem!!!!!


"Hope they're not holding their breath waiting for Ottawa," offers Kia, adding "remember this area voted Conservative."

A very good day and a very good meeting, thanks chiefly to Rod MacLean.
His frankness and candor was appreciated.