This document by Gyula Kiss will prove just how inefficient Master Water Plan 2012 really is.
Bluntly stated, it's a system that took the Vernon Irrigation District to include domestic water users in Master Water Plan 2002, edited in 2004, then redone as Master Water Plan 2012, and then (poof!) back again...to serve irrigators, with domestic customers paying for agricultural use!
Don't believe it?
Read on:
"But now the question is how to convince politicians to right the bureaucratic ship," says Kia, "as it's been listing far too long."
It's not a blame game.
Residents deserve to have this done right.
Residents deserve to have this done right.
It is unfortunate that Councillor Kiss continues to propose the most expensive, and also, the least sustainable of any water plan.
ReplyDeleteIrrigation sucking more raw water out of the lake is not environmentally responsible.
Building expensive infrastructure with mainly residential ratepayer dollars to serve a dwindling user class (agriculture) is not fiscally responsible. Agricultural water demand is not anticipated to increase, but residential demand is.
Mothballing the plant that gets us water from the Shuswap watershed instead of only the Okanagan basin is neither fiscally prudent nor sustainable. When drought affects the Okanagan, like it did last year, or when invasive mussels move in, we'll be thankful to have Duteau water available.
Adding the filter to Duteau is still the cheapest way to bring our water into compliance with provincial standards. It is outrageous that our politicians, and especially, Councillor Kiss, continue to drag their feet instead of doing what it takes to ensure we all have access to safe drinking water.
What Mr. Kiss proposes is fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unsustainable, morally questionable and a risk to public health.
Wake up sheeple, how are you ever going to get lower rates by supporting the politician with the most expensive plan?
Time to listen to our hired experts - the people who manage our water safely, today and every day, and the consultants who are indeed those same learned people who've worked on water in our area for many, many years. Clearly our politicians are not getting it done.
I see a lot of claims in the post above, and not one of them backed up by evidence of any sort. It's a shame the poster couldn't address Mr. Gyula's arguments instead of simply making baseless claims. Nor do I believe the poster understands Mr. Gyula's alternative plan, since it doesn't involve "sucking more raw water out of the lake" for irrigation. Even if he was correct in that, does he suggest sucking raw water out of the lake, refining it, and THEN using it for irrigation as is happening now?
ReplyDeleteIn response to 4:18 pm poster: So you feel that Duteau's winter treatment costs of $363/ML versus Mission Hill's $83/ML is a good plan?
ReplyDeleteAs to farm irrigation not expected to grow--as GVW has stated--those figures are as UNbelievable as some of their other data. Example is Bylands Nurseries growing 50,000 apple trees on Highway 6 just between Murphy and Warren Roads. How about the 30,000 apple tree seedlings featured in the MS in the BX that showed them being weeded. How about the huge cherry orchard at the east end of Buchanan, with more to come from this prime grower?
Domestic water under GVW costs almost twice what Penticton residents pay. Ditto re Kelowna. Do you believe North Okanagan residents will tolerate that? All while agriculture contributes less than 4 per cent of GVW's annual water budget. Even the consultants suggested that ag should pay between 14 and 18 per cent).
GVW is entirely responsible in creating a war between domestic and agriculture IF chlorinated--and soon to be filtered--water continues to be applied to farmlands.
To the original poster, you obviously have a limited knowledge of the Duteau watershed. The three lakes there are fed primarily by two creeks, Heart Creek and the larger and higher elevation Duteau Creek. They originate in the Greystokes, the exact same place Mission Creek starts! So no, we would not be bowing down to the almighty DCWTP as our saviour during a drought because it would be affected just as much as Mission Creek ( main water supplier of Okanagan Lake ) The difference would be in the resiliency and sustainability of Okanagan lake vs Duteau. The larger main stem lake would be much more reliable and supply us WAY better than the shallow puddles of Duteau any day!
ReplyDelete4:18pm here - Thank you all for your passionate views on water!
ReplyDeleteI am delighted to respond – albeit, long-windedly - in the next 3 posts, as more than 4,096 characters are not accepted by this blog. And unfortunately I cannot add working hyperlinks, as HTML is not allowed. Please copy and paste into your browser.
>>> Irrigation sucking more raw water out of the lake is not environmentally responsible. <<<<
ReplyDeleteVisit www.okwaterwise.ca for more information about our region‘s water use. Check out the Okanagan Basin Waterscape Poster to learn more about the Myth of Abundance.
>>> Building expensive infrastructure with mainly residential ratepayer dollars to serve a dwindling user class (agriculture) is not fiscally responsible. Agricultural water demand is not anticipated to increase, but residential demand is. <<<<
We must consider the consequences of separating agricultural and irrigation water use from residential so we can deliver raw water and drinking water in separate pipes.
Agriculture water demand isn’t forecast to increase as much as residential water use. The cherry operations Kia mentions in the Coldstream Valley employ extremely efficient watering methods, including micro-drip irrigation, so they use far less water than traditional farming. The vast majority of farmers have also implemented water-saving measures. How much irrigation will be required in the future? Is it OK to draw more raw water from our lakes or creeks?
When you consider agriculture/irrigation contributes less than $1 million of annual revenue for our utility, Option 1 would save ratepayers so much that we could equally choose to provide farmers with FREE drinking water for the next 80 years. Why build pricey infrastructure to maintain and operate?
The majority of the utility’s users are residential, so they are most subject to rate increases to help fund major projects, repairs, legislated improvements, etc.
It is interesting to note that reclaimed water rates were recently rolled back for golf courses in Vernon, but not all local golf courses are connected to this system. Let’s ask who paid to construct that infrastructure…hmmm. Oh and let’s ask if residents could get their rates rolled back too. Dang, that might be happening under the newest rate structure… even with the meter fee.
See where I am going with this? Politicians must set the rates, and those rates ought to reflect our community’s priorities.
(Sorry looks like more than 3 posts will be required!)
>>> Mothballing the plant that gets us water from the Shuswap watershed instead of only the Okanagan basin is neither fiscally prudent nor sustainable. <<<<
ReplyDeleteThe Duteau Creek water clarification plant was constructed in 18 months and completed in 2010 at a cost of $29.2 million. It is not fiscally prudent to mothball this utility asset. Plans included a Stage 2 filter, estimated at $20 million. Provincial and federal grants of $13.8 million required filtration. Costs are expected to rise - the 2012 MWP estimated $26.5 million for filtration.
Download the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant brochure at www.rdno.ca/docs/duteau_creek_information.pdf
>>> When drought affects the Okanagan, like it did last year, or when invasive mussels move in, we'll be thankful to have Duteau water available. <<<<
Duteau Creek is a diversion from the Shuswap watershed via the “Greater Vernon Water Pipeline”, which may assist our area in better coping with the impacts of drought, invasive mussels or other disasters compared to a community that relies solely on the Okanagan basin for water.
Here is a detailed map of the Okanagan Basin:
www.obwb.ca/wsd/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/map1_subbasins.pdf
Grey bits are outside the Okanagan Basin, a diversion from basin to basin.
Look also for Fortune Creek/Deep Creek - it also sneaks into the Okanagan Basin from another watershed.
Our sub-regional water utility is much nimbler when Duteau Creek water can be interchanged with Mission Hill water at any time, reducing or eliminating customer notifications and inconvenience. Over Christmas, a power outage at the Mission Hill plant was handled by switching over to Duteau Creek water.
>>> Adding the filter to Duteau is still the cheapest way to bring our water into compliance with provincial standards. It is outrageous that our politicians, and especially, Councillor Kiss, continue to drag their feet instead of doing what it takes to ensure we all have access to safe drinking water. <<<<
See economic arguments/evidence above. Read all options of the MWP at www.rdno.ca/water – go to Master Water Plan - or compare a summary, e.g. www.rdno.ca/docs/MWP_TM9_Summary.pdf
>>> What Mr. Kiss proposes is fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unsustainable, morally questionable and a risk to public health. <<<<
ReplyDeleteRaw water is untested water. Drinking water is regularly tested and results are posted online at www.rdno.ca/water. Filtration is an Interior Health requirement for surface water sources such as Duteau Creek to meet provincial standards. See www.interiorhealth.ca
>>> Wake up sheeple, how are you ever going to get lower rates by supporting the politician with the most expensive plan? <<<<
See above.
>>> Time to listen to our hired experts - the people who manage our water safely, today and every day, and the consultants who are indeed those same learned people who've worked on water in our area for many, many years. Clearly our politicians are not getting it done. <<<<
Ummm, everyone. You are all fired up about water, as much as me! Clearly our politicians are not getting it done. I’m nearly ready to rip off my Greater Vernon bandaid.
To Kia: Rates are the only thing that should be decided upon by our politicians. Leave the mechanics and financing to our hired experts, just like we rely on accountants, hair stylists, etc.
A new rate structure to reflect our community’s priorities must also keep in mind the history of our combined system.
Have they asked lately, what are our priorities? Is it safe drinking water for people or animals? Low-cost irrigation water? Competitive rates for agriculture? Water for fish and wildlife, for farming, for residents’ veggie gardens, for non-profits, for a golf course or business, for empty lots, for industry, for hobby farms, for playing fields and public spaces…?
The operating costs for a separated system are not to be dismissed. It is inevitable that the separated system will cost more to operate than the current one.
Sorry, I see it as fiscally imprudent, environmentally unsustainable and morally questionable to require residents to invest in a costly system that will deliver less safe water directly from the creek or lake to only high-volume customers, at lower rates than ever.
Surely staff and professionals could work together with our elected officials to develop an equitable rate structure to share the burden across all rate classes and reflect our community priorities, while generating sufficient revenue.
Perhaps the public could even have a say!
Kia, maybe the agricultural/irrigation formula could creep up to 10% for 55% of the use, over time?
I also support a hearty discussion of our reclaimed water system, especially who benefits and who pays.
Thanks for reading!
Thank you for your comments.
ReplyDeleteAdditional thoughts:
Just how much of the pro-DCWTP aversion to line twinning results from the possibility that the old Lavington lines contain asbestos-contaminated concrete?
Another point: considerable benefits accrue to fish stocks if point-of-diversion license transfers occur from the uplands, compared to the present system of upstream irrigation use.
And safe water? DCWTP's TTHMs and HAAs are 40 times those of MHWTP. Air scrubbing? The technology has been available longer than DCWTP has been operating. If it's a panacea, why wasn't it built in during construction?
Another point: even GVW's consultants realize the current system's shortcomings.
As to GVW complaints about mud-boggers and vandalism on the Aberdeen plateau generally, why haven't bureaucrats years ago worked with Victoria to create a "Priority Use" designation that places the water source first above recreational use? The public's desire and ability to access Crown land should clearly be second to protecting a community's drinking water, especially on the plateau where supervision is impossible.
Proof that ag--with each year--contributes less to the annual budget (as the budget is growing faster than ag's rates) is because no-one would be left to contribute towards it if it were separated into its own utility.
A consultant's comment during SAC deliberations is recalled: "You are blessed with LOTS of water."
By the way...Councillor Kiss' plan does NOT promote using Okanagan Lake until many years into the future.
That is IF the population grows.
IF the North Okanagan hasn't become Barkerville II.
This from Treatment technical memorandum: "The optimal solution must ensure that high quality water is always available for domestic needs, while agricultural customers have access to adequate volumes of water that is not priced to include the expensive and unnecessary water treatment".
ReplyDeleteGiving (yes, giving!) treated water to agriculture is where GVW and elected officials of GVAC have failed.