Hydro Vying for Gouger of the Year with GVW

...and then raises the gouging ante.

Anything to do with a bureaucracy seems to be going absolutely mad with their charges to customers.

Just noticed the residential hydro bill crept -- albeit by only 76 kWh -- into the Step 2 rate for the period October 22nd through December 18th, 2015. 

Step 1 was 1,287 kWh, charged at $.07970...8 cents / kWh.

Step 2 is charged at $.11950...12 cents / kWh.

"W.A.C. Bennett just turned over in his grave," offers Kia.

Ringing in my ears is WAC's comment "owned by the residents of British Columbia".

Oh...and a pantload of thanks to Coldstream Municipality's leaders over the years with all their fooh-faah Official Community Plans, none of which were worth the powder to blow to hell.
Why? 
Because their interference with natural growth patterns stymied increases to Buchanan Road's density.

Did officials know their actions would equate to no natural gas being available here? 
In 40 years?
Nope.
 
 

"Mom, he's puking"

So began the text from my daughter yesterday.

To make a long story short, the foot of snow that fell on Sunday/Monday made daughter's long steep driveway virtually impassable, except for her husband making it down the driveway to head to work.  He would deal with snow clearing that evening when he returned.

Daughter had run out of 2% milk for our 19-month old grandson.
She--later--admitted to giving him tap water to drink.
All day.

He vomited. 
And not only once.

Frantic, she contacted me.

After discussing what he had--and hadn't--eaten, she and I quickly realized that they hadn't been out of the house since Christmas Eve, four days earlier.  So he hadn't "caught a bug" from the busy shopping season, nor were any family members ill.

Then the little bell rang in my head...
Duteau tap water, with its unacceptable levels of Trihalomethane and Haloacetic Acids, in addition to the stinky chlorine smell that a glass of tap water exudes. 

"....Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant levels exceeding by 400% the Standard (compared to Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant's lower levels)" from page 20 of 49 here.

"...the TTHM results continue to be in excess

of the GCDWQ MAC, ranging between 99 and 236 μg/L.

The species of TTHM measured in the Duteau Creek source water is almost exclusively composed of chloroform."

The Maximum Acceptable is 100!

Table 1 (on page 4 of 6) here states that "main risk on Duteau (is) at end of system (note, reviewing other treatment and operational options to reduce)."
   

The 2 charts on Duteau Creek plant's Disinfection By-Products are on pages 23 and 24 here.

Oh my gawd...

I almost yelled into the phone...no more tap water.
Ever. 
Their home is "near the end of the system", where it's recognized by GVW and consultants that the main risk from the highest levels of disinfection by-products occurs.

Needless to say the little guy got a fresh supply of 2% milk.
Pronto.

"The vomiting is over," daughter reported, "I'll never give him tap water again."
Good.


"I only drink tap water in summer," says Kia looking at her water bowl, "so I'm glad it snowed...snow tastes great."


Dangerous Duteau, whose disinfection by-products are up to 400 per cent higher than those found in water from Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant.

Heads should roll, but to date, heads have only been nodding.
Disgraceful!

Water Savers Penalized

...and it has ever been thus on the Greater Vernon Water system's Master Water Plan rate schedule.  Domestic water rates 2015 begin on page 10 of 13 here.

Who gets penalized the most? 
Seniors on a fixed income of course.
Especially widowed seniors.
Basically anyone who lives alone gets dinged, big time!

And GVW officials don't give a damn.
Nor do the majority of elected officials on the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee who are their bosses.

For example, my 93 year old Mother--hale and hearty and still living independently--skimps and saves on water as though it's a new mantra to be obeyed.
All that careful planning to use, and reuse, water wisely equates to her paying nearly six dollars for each cubic metre of the "precious" resource.

But Gyula Kiss' proposal for 2016 equity in water pricing should give seniors and other low water users cause for hope.

Click table to zoom.

Courtesy:  Gyula Kiss

So, seniors, fill that bathtub and soak to your heart's content.
Heck, do a lap or two, versus barely getting the corns on your toes immersed.
Because Gyula Kiss' equity in water pricing will allow you to have almost twice the water for the same amount you've been paying.

"Seniors built this country," reminds Kia adding, "they deserve a little less hardship than GVW imposed on them."

Agreed.
In spades.

Despite not finding a Canadian version of this, it's still accurate.

One Wise Man

My annual Christmas phone call to a gentleman today led to a compelling revelation.

I won't name the local senior; suffice to say that I've respected his tenacity and work ethic for darn near forty years.

Following our usual catch-up chat, he turned the conversation toward our area's water situation when he said what this area lacks is the type of person--a person like former RDNO head and Coldstream Mayor Ross Postill--who had the courage to simply say "no" when he personally deemed it was warranted.

And why would Mr. Postill have rejected an idea?

"Because he knew it made no sense to spend that much money that only appears to fix things...that problems would remain even after the money had been spent.  His common sense convinced his colleagues to also withhold support.  And things got done.  Or not if it was a ridiculous idea."

My dear friend was talking about today's Master Water Plan that hasn't twinned agricultural and domestic water lines (with only minor exceptions).  "Putting treated water on forage and orchard crops is ludicrous."

He pointed to the culprit..."way too many committees, way too many large committees, way too many bureaucrats, way too many consultants, way too many elected officials who waffle and commit to a cumbersome and expensive scenario, way too many uninformed opinions all of which create dilution of any good idea that may have surfaced until that good idea is long gone...mostly because of a lack of common sense."

And the clincher:  "way too many bureaucrats and elected officials who falsely believe they're moving forward by protecting their earlier foibles.  With one exception:  Gyula Kiss!"

I agreed.
Completely.

"So there are two wise men," offers Kia.

Yes.
Unfortunately only two.

Merry Christmas, dear friend.  

Interesting Omissions on OK Lake Water Source Story

Hallelujah...finally a Morning Star story on the Stakeholders' Advisory Committee meetings at RDNO as they conduct a layperson review of the Master Water Plan.

Rolke's story:  Committee discusses OK Lake options

"Tapping into a new water source could create challenges in Greater Vernon.

Members of the master water plan stakeholders' advisory committee were provided with information Thursday about possibly drawing water from Okanagan Lake, something that presently doesn't occur.

'You would have a pump station at the head of the lake and pump all of the way to the Mission Hill treatment plant,' said consultant Brett deWynter.

A pump station would be required because Okanagan Lake's surface elevation is 341.5 metres, which means it is lower than Vernon.

'No one has control over what electrical rates will become,' said deWynter of the need for power to pump the water uphill.

The present water system is gravity-fed, with Duteau Creek at an elevation of 649.95 metres and Kalamalka Lake at 391.7 metres.

Committee member Paul Williamson suggested constructing a treatment plant near Goose Lake that could draw water from Okanagan Lake and service northwest Greater Vernon, Spallumcheen and the Okanagan Indian Reserve.

'That's an option we should definitely look at,' he said.

Another concern about switching from the Duteau source to Okanagan Lake is the potential arrival of invasive mussels in the region.

The mussels flourish in calcium rich water such as Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes, whereas there are low calcium levels in Duteau Creek.

These mussels clog water intake pipes, pumps and boat motors.  They also deplete food sources for fish and produce toxins that kill fish and birds and contaminate drinking water.

'Putting an intake in at different depths (in the lake) could not work,' said Doug Neden, committee member.

The committee was also provided information on water utilities in other local jurisdictions.

In Kelowna, about 60,000 people get their water from Okanagan Lake, with the remaining 60,000 served by up to 10 other independent utilities.

'It has zero agricultural base,' said deWynter of the City of Kelowna utility from Okanagan Lake.

Presently, the City of Kelowna system is not filtrated(sic...filtered) but that may not be avoidable in the future.

'Water rates in Kelowna will go up, they are going up,' said Jim Garlick, committee chairperson, of government regulations.

In Penticton, two water sources are used and filtration has been in place since the mid-1990s.

'The treatment facility was built with 33 per cent tax dollars and the rest came from elsewhere (senior government)', said deWynter.

'Federal government funding is not where it was back in the 1990s.'

West Kelowna has two water sources and the treatment technologies vary.

'One group of residents pays for filtered water and another group pays for non-filtered water.  It's a legacy of two irrigation districts,' said deWynter.

Garlick says the amalgamation of Greater Vernon's water utilities and system upgrades have been beneficial.

'I'm thankful that we have Duteau Creek.  We have everyone paying the same rate and people can see through their water,' he said."  Vernon Morning Star


So...there were omissions?
Plural?
Yup...

1.   Seems committee member Williamson missed the meeting segment where it was mentioned that water flow essentially must travel from the Duteau end--where pipe diameters are 4 feet--to the North and Northeast of Vernon--where pipe diameters are 4 inches.  Some of which would blow his "from Goose Lake" theory to goose-feathers.

2.  Seems reporter Rolke missed the meeting segment where it was mentioned that Kelowna's water system(s) today are where the North Okanagan's water system was 10 years ago.

3.  Seems chairperson Garlick is a tad ahead of himself as the proposal for "same water rates" hasn't yet been approved by GVAC, who will deliberate Mr. Kiss' proposal in January.   But Garlick's already salivating at the thought of everybody paying $2.59 a cubic metre.   Not lost on the gallery was the consultant's statement that one Kelowna group pays for filtered water and one pays for unfiltered.

4.  Seems GVW bureaucrats--proud as punch of two water systems--forgot to consider #1 above when they brag that Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant can serve Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant's customers in East Coldstream/Lavington...remember the 4 feet --down to 4 inch--pipe diameter configuration?  At some point in West Coldstream/East Vernon--as pipes head west and northeast--diameter changes occur.

"The second omission is likely untrue," offers Kia, "as the information was for SAC."

Regardless, it's good that there's finally another installment in the sparse coverage by print media.

Got Lost in MWP Translation

REVISION:  Link to my TM1-9 summary has been repaired.  Thanks for notifying me it was broken!

UPDATE:  Forgot to include one of the most important costs-to-customers factors:

treatment costs in the winter DC $363/ML compared to MH $83/ML. 
So why don't we use Mission Hill during the 7 months of winter?
"Contractual obligations," according to GVW.



Yup, lost and dizzy, back and forth to other TMs, and back again to TM9.

But there's already been a professional review of the Master Water Plan.

Yes.
In 2013.
By Michael Stamhuis, whose review was incorporated into my summary here. 

Included is data I felt was critical (probably the same thing that GVW encouraged consultants to do with 9 memoranda that had 55 revisions).

"Certainly saved the floor from felt pen marks," says Kia.

Quiz Question on MWP Quandry

Even those of us who have been paying attention to the Master Water Plan review--and have waded through the Technical Memoranda--didn't know the answer to this question:

  Question:  Greater Vernon Water is proud of their two water sources:  Kal Lake and Duteau Creek because the two sources are interchangeable.  GVW could provide all of the water from Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant to all of their North Okanagan customers.  Yes they can.  So why don't they considering that winter treatment costs at DCWTP are $363/ML, with MHWTP at only $83/ML?

Asked the question, I came up with answer after answer.
Incorrect answer after incorrect answer.

My replies? 

•  DC fills Goose Lake; the alternative would be to install a “steady pump year round” (if I can call it that) at OK Lake to fill Goose Lake?

• Because everybody in Coldstream/Lavington is above the magic ~438m elevation and there are no pumps to send it up here?  Plus no pressure even if they could…and obviously with no pressure, there’s no fire protection?

• Because we haven’t transferred upland water license to use more of Kal Lake which supplies MH?

• Or because they have to lower DC to prevent flooding in Lumby before the irrigation season in Lav/Coldstrm starts up?

AAAARGH!
My replies were each incorrect.
So I dutifully gave up and asked for the correct answer.

Sit down (...haven't we been doing that a lot lately):

"Contractual obligation.  We need all the staff in the summer." 

Greater Vernon Water official

DCWTP winter O&M costs are

437.3493975903615 %

higher than

 MHWTP winter O&M costs.

"I think I just swallowed my tongue," gasps Kia.

There's an emoticon for the scenario, but I can't even spell it to find it.

Funny thing...I recall during my working career at Riverside Forest Products that there was a unionized (IWA) category entitled Permanent Part-Time.  I suppose that never occurred to GVW.

 

Waters' Poor Relatives?

...yet according to the Okanagan Basin Water Board's motto, Kelowna and Armstrong might as well be in another province.

Source:  Okanagan Basin Water Board website

One valley, yes.
One water, supposedly.

If it's one valley and one water, the problem must be too many bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats who may have erred in choosing Duteau Creek as a water source.

All signs point to that as the Stakeholders Advisory Committee deliberates TM 9 (System Separation Option Analysis) this Thursday at RDNO's 8 a.m. meeting.

Open to the public.
Hint hint!

After having heard that Armstrong's water "mock" billing period has ended, and their rates published, it seems most folks pay about $65 to $85 annually for their residential water!

Thirty-one cents a cubic metre for water in Armstrong!

Then, we hear about a Kelowna resident on a city lot, two adults.
Covered was the annual period ending October 9, 2015.
Consumption?  390 cubic metres (so they must've had a wonderfully productive vegetable garden for their family and friends...good for them!)
Total bill, including sewer was $421.62!

My annual residential water bill?  At less than half the Kelowna example, my household of two adults used 155 cubic metres of water.  No veggie garden to speak of.
Total bill 2014, no sewer was $534.00.

"No wonder the North Okanagan is the poor relative of Kelowna and Armstrong," intones Kia.

Our wallets?
Full o' cobwebs...

2016 Water Rates Proposal

You'll be able to plunk in YOUR numbers.

A sure sign that something interesting was before them on Thursday was bureaucrats' eyebrows arching.
Even politicians who normally pooh-pooh Gyula Kiss' proposals seemed interested.

He's done it again.

Gyula Kiss has proposed a 2016 Water Rates proposal that has everyone paying the same rate.
Before you freak at the $2.59 / m3 rate because, as a homeowner, you're currently paying less per cubic meter with your family's conservation efforts...pay attention.

Your water bill will likely decrease!

Dig out your water invoices.
Calculations will be done for you.

As Bob Spiers' blog states:
  "Councillor Kiss' rate structure is basically to lower the base fee to $55.59 per quarter ($25.86 base + 29.73 for borrowing outstanding) and charge everything above the first 10m3 per quarter at the rate of 2.59m3. Everyone in the non agriculture class would be charged the same base fee per connection and the same consumption rate. (Residential, Commercial, & Institutional)

How this would affect the various classes can be ascertained by using the online calculators . Just click in your average quarterly consumption (in the yellow box) to see the effect on your water bill when compared to the 2015 rates. Note there are separate calculators for residential and Commercial/institutional.

Remember that this is an alternate rate structure proposal that will be discussed at the rates workshop that will be held in January or February of 2016."

Dig out your water invoices.

The residential calculator is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HMfaBLo5llptiYVNIxMhGKhVVHpPcPXKcpav5Ecvn7k/edit#gid=0

The commercial/institutional calculator is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FgwH8iYm8oRsvp2KsIs70yG4ipyhy1RYHu-a08mgzT8/edit#gid=0

 "The advent of fairness?" asks Kia.

Now let's see if GVAC can achieve consensus in their rates deliberations...coming up early in the New Year.

Resource:  Water Rates Bylaw 2672, 2015, beginning on page 9. 
 
  

You Don't Believe What Agriculture Pays for Water?

...for GVW's chlorinated--and soon to be filtered--water?

To put it simply, the more they use (without going over their allocation), the cheaper their per cubic metre cost is.

Yup.

First, the rules:
Agricultural allocation under the 2015 Water Rates Bylaw 2672 here, is described as:

Allocation means the amount of water assigned to a property by the RDNO for irrigation purposes. The allocation is measured in hectares, and determines the maximum instantaneous flow rate permitted to the property, and the maximum total volume of water permitted per irrigation season.

1 acre of water = 0.404686 hectare

Agriculture pays $66.86/Q, per hectare of the property's allocation (click graphic to zoom):

Yes, agriculture is metered, but only for the purpose of ascertaining if/when a farm property's allocation is exceeded during the ~5 month annual irrigation season.  Tiered over-consumption rates then kick in as follows: 

There are no other agricultural water fees.

We'll do two examples where, for ease of comparison, each farm has 10.0035 acres allocation.

Farm A:
10.0035 acres allocation = 22,275 m3 allowable annual use.
If Farm A uses 22,000 m3, the Q allocation fee $66.84 x 4Q is $267.44 x 4.05 ha = $1,083.13.
$1,083.13 / 22,000 = 2,674.00 / 22,000 = $0.049 / m3

But, say it's a wet year:
If Farm A uses 11,000 m3, the Q allocation fee $66.84 x 4Q is $267.44 x 4.05 ha =$1,083.13.
$1,083.13 / 11,000 = $0.098 / m3


$1,083.13 is Farm A's total annual water bill, whether they use 22,275 m3 or 11,000 m3.
Period.
No base fee, no consumption charge because they didn't go over allocation.

Is it any wonder that Zee Marcolin, GVW Manager, said this at the December 3rd, 2015 SAC meeting when discussing Water Conservation:

"There's no hit to our revenue when ag conserves."

Zee Marcolin, GVW Manager

Farm B:
But it's a very dry year, and Farm B goes over allocation by 2,004 m3:

10.0035 acres allocation = 22,275 m3 + 2,004 = 24,279 m3

Farm B uses 24,279 m3, the Q allocation fee is $66.84 x 4Q is $267.44 x 4.05 ha = $1,083.13.
Plus Tier A (under 10% over-allocation) = 2,004 m3 x $.30/m3 = $601.20.  Grand Total $1,684.33
$1,684.33 / 24,279 = $$3,275.00 / 24,279 = $0.069 / m3

Result:  Farm A, in a wet year, uses 11,000 m3 water = $0.098 / m3
whereas in a full-use allocation year 22,000 m3 water = $ 0.049 / m3

Result:  Farm B, using 2,004 m3 over allocation, cost per cubic meter = $0.049

Source:  Agriculture rates are on page 9 of Bylaw link (above).

Then...something peculiar occurs that only Greater Vernon Water officials can explain (because it's nowhere on the rate sheet).

Both Farm A and Farm B would be eligible for rebates for domestic use (540 properties receive $269 per year and 650 properties receive $106.88 annually), further decreasing their m3 cost).


As the Stakeholder Advisory Committee deliberates, have they heard this compelling quotation by a member of the area's pioneer farming family:

“The untreated pressurized agricultural water system

put in place some 40 years ago still meets

the industry’s present and future needs.”

      Jamie Kidston, (Coldstream Corner “Agricultural Water Rates” July 17, 2015.)

Back to consumption examples.
Why was the odd amount 10.0035 acres (4.05 ha) allocation used for the example?
Because that's the water allocation for Highlands' Golf (non-farm) irrigation.

Let's look at only the 2014 Highlands Golf irrigation costs:  

2014 irrigation cost = $1.05 / m3 (despite what it says below....)

(plus clubhouse meter plus residence meter)

Consumption as a percentage of Highlands Golf allocation is shown below:

Within 3 years, the non-potable commercial irrigation category is being cancelled by GVW, at which time six commercial irrigators will be at a much higher rate for irrigation.

Whether or not you're a golfer, whether or not you agree that there's little difference between farm and golf course irrigation, you may agree that GVW's irrigation rates are beyond incomparable with farm irrigation rates.

"Gored and impaled," attests Kia.