MWP Silence?

Didn't see or hear anything about the most recent GVAC meeting at which the Stakeholders' Advisory Committee's recommendations on the Master Water Plan were to have been presented.
Presumably how GVW was going to proceed?
Maybe everyone's terrified of doing a story on what happened at the meeting?
In case they get it wrong?

Nada on Kiss-FM News.
Nada in yesterday's Morning Star.
Nada on Castanet yesterday.
Nada on CHBC-TV's online stories.

Maybe they're all wondering how to describe what foregone conclusion means.

Nada yet on Bob Spiers' blog.
Nada yet on Gyula Kiss' blog, with note of the following posted June 21/16 in anticipation of what occurs next:

“....As it happened the Staff-supported Option 2 prevailed, eliminating all of the options that would have used Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes for fully separated domestic supplies. Never mind the threat of climate change and higher treatment costs.

The process will totally dismantle the original VID irrigation system and replace it with a complicated new system. There will be three supply lines (domestic only from Mission Hill, mixed irrigation/domestic water from the Duteau Treatment Plant and a new untreated irrigation water supply directly from Harvey Lake). All those systems will be the financial responsibility of the domestic customers. They will pay the cost of construction, operation and maintenance and the replacement value of the total system. The current 4% agriculture contribution of the total budget is a smidgen of those costs."

 

So, while the public is wondering what is going on, GVW obviously knows where they're heading.
And it's obviously not toward another water referendum.

Here is a link to Non-Potable Water Rates, as well as a 17-page GVW schedule of procedures for administering service rates and construction of separation projects.

I found it odd, really, that the attachment (the map just ahead of two "draft" resident letters) "GVW Completed Non-Potable Projects" doesn't delineate the properties North of Buchanan Road at all!
As an aside, the penultimate letter the 17-page document contains is for residents who already have a non-potable water connection to their property, the last letter is for those residents who do not.

Look at the map, with its scale of 1:125,000 and try to find Highlands Golf location.  No property boundaries are shown on the north side of Buchanan!  Actually, at first glance, that led me to believe the (legend) line marking Buchanan Road was actually the northern boundary of my--and neighbours'--properties.  But it's not!  That legend road line is Buchanan Road.  The road frontage line! 

So are we going to get non-potable water?
Despite a previous consultant (in a TM) stating that north Buchanan Road "irrigators" (West Buchanan Road) didn't use sufficient water for irrigation to justify separating us from the chlorinated line?

I suppose we'll all find out soon enough what's next.

But in the meantime, some compelling and thoughtful opinions have been shared:
An anonymous sampling follows:

"The concern of Joe/Jane Ratepayer is his/her water bill. A dual system costs at least twice as much . The benefits are, at best, questionable.  Equally questionable are how rates have been set at levels far above cost recovery. Hence, the big reserves. Focus on the dollars. Everyone relates to that. Everyone relates to the waste of using expensively treated to drinking standards water then used to grow hay or silage corn. Joe or Jane Ratepayer could care less about where their water comes from. What they care about is what it costs and not being cut off in drought years. That is where the GVW bureaucrats  and GVAC political appointees  are vulnerable.  Vernon is unique in its billing structure. No other community, to my knowledge, charges so much for not a single drop of water."

And another:

 

"...built a wealth of knowledge about why but the reality is the rates are too high. They need to offer a solution that reduces rates, our elected reps need to take that message to the budgeting process."

And another:

"...there is need to significantly change the way the two systems are operated to improve efficiency and reduce costs e.g. cease treating water to potable standards for agricultural uses; identify and prosecute individuals/enterprises who are 'stealing' water upstream of meters; identify and repair system leaks; establish fair rates for all users based on volume and quality of water used; terminate exorbitant base fees; develop and use better models for predicting watershed inflow, reservoir volumes and droughts.

And another:

 

"...I believe GVW management and staff do not rank cost of service as a high priority in their decision making and they feel water rates are the responsibility of their political masters.  The formation of the GVW utility has a legacy of commitments to the original agricultural utility which no one is prepared to correct. Unfortunately, the multiple levels of governance (GVW, GVAC, GVW, City of Vernon, City of Coldstream, Regional Districts, Interior Health, etc. etc. make it inevitable that everyone will blame someone else and do nothing to find a solution. 

GVW should NOT raise the height of the dams on the Aberdeen reservoirs.  This work will be significantly more costly than estimated; the ability to store more water is uncertain and the benefits are questionable given GVW's demonstrated inability to effectively mange the reservoirs they have now. If reservoir storage were to be successfully increased, instream flows would be further altered, currently a sore point with government agencies responsible for fisheries habitat.
Note also that new construction is not appropriate given that the Duteau water intake has not yet been completed as designed to withstand a flood event."

And another:

 

"...The decisions ... made in the past, to include large areas of agricultural lands in the Greater Vernon Water Utility area, in order to convert largely Irrigation Water License to domestic use and now choosing a plan that forces us to treat all the water to domestic drinking water standards (without separating pipes for and no treatment for irrigation water) and put it on agricultural fields will drive the price of domestic water so high that people will revolt (or move away) or force up the price of Agricultural Users which will further kill the economics of agriculture."

And another:

 

"...the water authority intends to carry on with their development plans bypassing any referendum to uber-fund over the next 20 years.  The Capital Expenditure amount of $5.1 million is the first installment in a pay-as-you go formula designed to bypass the 2014 failed water referendum.  This allows MWP2012 to proceed, financed by high rates to be borne by current residential users while no real benefit accrues to all except the small group  (Areas B and C) who would see the benefits of partial separation.  Benefit should accrue equitably among users."

Is it any wonder confusion exists among the public?  See June 22, 2016 blog story entitled "Now I'm Really Confused..."


"No time to shave with all this stuff happenin'," mumbles Kia.
 

Important Documents:
2015 Greater Vernon Water Annual Report
Regular Agenda (only) for GVAC Meeting July 7, 2016, 103 pages.
Special Agenda for GVAC Meeting June 29, 2016, 163 pages