Dirk Minces Words

That's what I'd say.

Doug Dirk, GVAC Advisory Committee member was quoted in Gyula Kiss' blog on Thursday as saying "The (failed water plan) referendum is coming up on three years and we're marginally coming along on how to finance it..."

Gyula called his blog entry "Doug Dirk is too kind".
So it's kinda true.
The part about marginally coming along anyway.

But Councillor Dirk--a veteran (like Gyula) in Coldstream's political scene--is mincing words.
Side-stepping, actually.

Instead of admitting he hasn't a clue (same as his boss, Coldstream Mayor Garlick) in how to rein in the costly bureaucratic bush-beating, inefficiencies and bungling that today see chlorinated water irrigating farms, it basically underscores everything at Greater Vernon Water.
Doug Dirk wants residents to believe that the plan is still proceeding, albeit slowly.
He should've stated "frankly, folks, we're heading in a direction of no return.  We're totally screwed."

  

Let's see what Gyula posted under his heading of Doug Dirk is too kind:

Director Dirk is too kind!

Actually, the Master Water Plan has been going on since 2001, for over 15 years. It was supposed to be completed by 2007 (see MWP 2002 page 11-1). Then politics came in. Over $70 million later, amazingly,  we are irrigating agricultural crops with treated water, a huge waste of ratepayers money. Treatment cost runs about $1.5 million a year. Unfortunately, this water has chlorination only for disinfection while it serves about 20% of the domestic customers. It needs more treatment.

Now GVWU is planning to spend additional $8+ million so they can irrigate crops with even more expensive ultraviolet treated water. That is an extra treatment cost on top of the $1.5 million for a total of likely over $2 million annually. As the Chair person remarked, with UV we hope to be able to defer (but not eliminate) filtration for a bit longer. If filtration also has to be installed that will make the $8 million UV treatment redundant. It will also make the treatment costs significantly higher.

Kelowna and the South East Irrigation District (SEKID) were facing the same problem as Greater Vernon and VID did. Kelowna chose to take the gradual improvement plan by improving the water quality for the greater population of Kelowna first by installing UV treatment on the Okanagan Lake water supply. They have deferred filtration as the lake water quality was good without filtration.

When the problem with SEKID finally came to a crunch Kelowna went to the Government with the problem. They succeeded in obtaining a $44 million grant that will be used for total separation of the irrigation and the domestic water supply.

Greater Vernon Utility officials believed that government grants could only be used for treatment plant construction. Kelowna proved it not to be so! GVU wasted our money (and government grants as well) for constructing an ill-advised, money sucking treatment plant at Duteau because "...grants were available for treatment plant construction".

Kelowna is getting to work on a totally separated system that will provide highly treated Okanagan Lake water for both SEKID and Kelowna customers.

There is still time to reverse the current MWP direction. Projected additional cost to complete the MWP as it currently planned is roughly $150 million. About $110 million of that is proposed for Duteau Plant projects. In addition there will remain the annual treatment cost of about $2 million or more. These moneys would be more than adequate to cover the total separation costs.

The current masters of the MWP have been at it for nearly 17 years with little to show for their efforts. They are now bogged down in protecting the current direction. Since the construction of the Duteau Creek WTP there was a desperate effort to maintain the plant in the system even if it costs more to the taxpayers. They would not admit that there were mistakes made. New information has not been incorporated into the plans. For instance, the initial projections for water demand were hugely overestimated. We are still using those estimates in our plans to create larger than necessary infrastructure. 

It is obvious that a second opinion is needed to evaluate the MWP. When a potential expenditure for the plan is  over $215 million we should not rely on the opinion of a single group that ruled for over 15 years with questionable success. We must insist on getting a second opinion.

Staff and politicians try to eliminate further input from the ratepayers by using inflated water rates to collect funding for the financing of the water plan. This way they would not have to go for another referendum. It's kind of an "end run" to avoid the repeat of the 2014 defeat of the referendum. 

 However, this action is totally inappropriate as the current ratepayers will not get the benefit of what they are paying for. The benefits will only come after the moneys are collected and the projects are completed. For many that might be too late! Talk to your elected politicians and express your opinion to them!

My earlier activities: In 1991 I wrote a report with supportive evidence that total separation of the domestic and agriculture systems is the most cost effective option to follow.  MWP 2002 affirmed the same principle.

In 2006 I appeared in front of the RDNO Board of Directors requesting a Judicial Review (click for news report) of the direction of the MWP. It was refused. Instead, staff wrote a report stating that the Plan, which is incomplete even today,  was heading in the right direction. It seems that was not true.

This might be my last effort to appeal to my colleagues and to the Greater Vernon Water customers to demand an independent review of the plans. I have no more voice on GVAC. Neither staff nor politicians wish to hear opposing opinion.

Perhaps they will have to start listening to you, the customers!"

 

 

The unwelcome opposing views at Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meetings are the educated and analytical work of Gyula Kiss, who knows all aspects of numerous master water plans better than the GVW engineers and consultants combined.

So is Doug Dirk too kind with his politically-minced words?
Yup, suppose so.

Just another useless political comment from Doug Dirk, almost matching his political attributes.
Must be something going around.

"Maybe there's something in the water," Kia would've said.

Totally screwed up.

"Marginally coming along."
Maybe Doug Dirk is referring to how irrigated trees will fare under the soon-to-be UV-treated irrigation water!

Deja vu...all over again

...that famous quote from Yogi Berra.

I recall a comment from a water consultant during the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, where it was stated:  "You're 10 years ahead of Kelowna" (with water planning).

Deja vu all over again.
Boy, oh boy, Kelowna area residents are in for a big surprise...
A gi-normous surprise.


Why?
Because Kelowna Mayor Colin Basran's phrases have been heard before.
They've been heard here in the North Okanagan.

You decide:

"...deliver high quality drinking water to all citizens, at equitable rates over time and will maintain agricultural interests....the plan will create a resilient and robust system serving both citizens and industry well into the future..."

(Blog note:  I don't recall hearing "supported by the Province" here.  Probably because Kelowna is B.C. Premier Christy Clark's constituency...)

and

"...an exercise that began in 2010 ... how best to proceed with the delivery of both domestic and agricultural water..."

and

"...a city-wide integrated system to achieve:
the best lowest cost city-wide solution;
meet Canadian Drinking Water Quality Standards;
(Blog note:  best and lowest cost are mutually exclusive).

flexibility from administrative and operational perspectives;
(Blog note:  from admin and operational...how about those of residents?)

maintain agricultural interests;
(Blog note:  we Greater Vernon Water customers have that phrase tattooed on our bodies!)

...a number of other benefits, including:
water quality, rate, supply and service equity;
(Blog note:  quality = TCMs etc.; rate = ridiculous rate increases annually while consumption continually declines; supply = guilt 'pressure' from OBWB; service equity = "giving" ag their chlorinated--yes chlorinated--water, almost free).

resilient and redundant system that meets domestic and agricultural needs;
efficiency in operations and administration."
(Blog note:  oh, ours is certainly redundant, which by the way is the opposite of efficiency in operations and admin.)

and

"...significant progress made to date ... a key consideration when senior levels of government are trying to determine the allocation of grant funding."
(Blog note:  translation:  T2 might pay for some of it...nice 'carrot').

and

"...technically, water quality issues can be solved independently by each provider, these independent technical solutions will be very costly, creating rate inequity for customers...the more cost effective solution is to create an integrated water system that meets the customers' water service expectations, protects public health, improves the esthetic(sic) qualities of the water, ensures equity in services and costs and creates a resilient and redundant supply system."
(Blog note:  wait until you see GVW's 'combined' solution for domestic and ag...you wanna read about creating rate inequity for customers!!!!  Because ag won't--and doesn't--pay!  Here, the ag 'contribution' approximates 4 per cent of the budget...only 'four'!)

and

"The preliminary numbers show a $95-million cost savings compared to the plan the team reviewed."
(Blog note:  without telling folks what plan the team initially had in mind?  Another 'carrot'...their residents should know that GVW's newest idea is to have three...yes, three...lines.  Cost for that?  We're at about $145 million now...the ink's not dry on that one yet, either, folks.)

and

"...would see drinking water drawn from two main sources; Mission Creek when water quality is good and from Okanagan Lake during the remainder of the year.  This significantly reduces the cost of pumping water from the lake for the majority of the year.
(Blog note:  when it's good...they'll tell residents 'tough bananas' when water quality is 'seldom' good.)

and

"...existing wells and other creeks would also be used as supplemental water sources, helping to defer advanced treatment.
(Blog note:  Existing wells?  good luck with that one because the OBWB will fight the usage of aquifers; and deferring advanced treatment is only for 'x' length of time."  

and

"...the use of  two main water sources greatly reduces the costs of advanced treatment..."
(Blog note:  residents should ask for 'greatly reduces' to be quantified.)

and

"...climate change is the biggest unknown when it comes to confidently planning water supply..."
(Blog note:  no, extravagant consultants are equal to climate change in their impact.)

and

"...best preparation for an uncertain future is to integrate the systems to create resilient and robust networks for both domestic and agricultural water."
(Blog note:  being prepared is not half the battle, despite what the old saying says.)

and

"...allowing lower quality untreated water to be used for agriculture, greatly reducing costs over time."
(Blog note:  I can't even bring myself to comment on this scandalous oft-heard lie).

and

"...supportive of any work that will ensure clean, safe and reliable drinking water for Interior Health residents...know that water system improvements come at a cost."
(Blog note:  the phrase 'any work' is downright scary...and we already know what we're already paying here.)


"Maybe Kelowna residents will have it easier--and cheaper--than us here," Kia would've said, adding "with the area being Christy Clark's constituency and all."

Which equals Kelowna's water plan?  GVW customers know which graphic describes ours.

  

Yogi Berra resurrected.
His sayings anyway.

Anybody notice that Mayor Basran left out the mussels invasion?
Wonder if anybody south of us is interested in what GVW customers pay for water.

Their water plan is available:
The Value Planning Study, found on the City of Kelowna’s website at kelowna.ca, 
 

When Government "Misleads" the Public

Interesting letter to the editor of the Morning Star today, by Duane A. Mather:

"Public is being ignored on issue:

(Note:  highlighting by blog author because Mr. Mather's letter could just as readily apply to local officials' and bureaucrats' dealings in the GVW master water plan issue!)


While there is always more than one solution to solving a problem and certainly in the problem solving analysis, all options and opinions should be considered.

In the case of the Stickle Road issue, part of the analysis was public consultation (likely a protocol required in our provincial legislation) through the public consultation open house process.

Many people take Abraham Lincoln's words from the Gettysburg address as a definition of democracy; "Government of the people, for the people, by the people."  The open house concept sort of supports the president's decree.

It doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Point in fact, the first solution by the Ministry of Transportation team was solidly rejected by the public attending and all of our community area elected officials.  Back to the drawing board for the ministry, instead of accepting the advice of the majority of the people.

Another open house was again solidly rejected by those attending but suddenly a new position by our mayor and the elected MLA, Eric Foster, citing the need to compromise with the ministry.

I for one do not think we elected these folks to appease Victoria.  We elected them to represent the community's position as presented to them by a majority of the citizens.

At open house round three, there was another attempt to do anything but what the people want, again being solidly rejected by the majority.  In baseball, three strikes and you're out, but not if your(sic) employed in the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Transportation.

The elected officials' job is to provide fiduciary oversight and leadership to the bureaucrats, not to roll over and capitulate to their arrogance.

The ministry must not have any statistical data to substantiate their claim that a light will compromise safety by creating rear end collisions otherwise they would have presented it.

As presented in many letters to this publication, there are many such lights on Highway 97 already in existence in the valley and if there is no data to support that claim, then at best that statement is misleading.

These repeated rounds of open house consultation being totally ignored are another waste of taxpayers' money.

The most economical solution paid for with taxpayers' money, supported by a significant majority of the citizenry, simply is a light.

Unfortunately, we can only deal with elected officials' arrogance during elections and the bureaucrats who are supposedly under their control.

So if they continue to bulldoze their solution through the process, that can only be dealt with in the future.

If I was a business owner along Stickle Road, I'd be looking for other alternatives to persuade the ministry to change their view.  Perhaps a court decreed injunction might provide a more sensible review of the facts.  Recent history of the HST fiasco in this province provides evidence there are ways to deal with issues with government after being misled.

The arrogant governments in Ottawa and our neighbouring province to the east recently got an awakening to voter wrath, something to consider in the future if this stupidity continues."

Duane A. Mather

and from the same publication, same topic, a snippet of the letter from resident, Joyce Penner:

"...This is what (Mayor) Mund told me.  He is on record supporting a traffic light during the first two planning sessions with the Ministry of Transportation.  However, by the third meeting, he realized there would be no traffic light at Stickle Road.  The reason given is it would cause a bottleneck in the traffic flow and, in fact, the ministry is reducing the number of traffic lights on Highway 97.  And the issue could not be put forward for at least 10 years to the provincial government."

Stickle flip/flop with Master Water Plan?

"Yup, elected officials supporting bureaucrats is akin to an evil alliance," offers Kia "with the open house 'input' just paying lip service to the lip-servicing provincial government."

Amen to that, having witnessed the MWP process recently.

Putting Off Until Tomorrow What Should Have Been Done Yesterday

...or more precisely, in 2002.
That was when the 2002 Master Water Plan recommended separating agricultural lines from domestic water lines.

And you can bet that the reason ("very expensive to separate ag lines") is a moot point.
They seem to believe it might, by some miracle, be cheaper in years to come.

Really?
Wow!

It was with considerable interest this letter to the Morning Star editor was read today:


"Water plan approval detailed:

"As a member of the Greater Vernon Stakeholder Advisory Committee, I was a bit taken aback to read that it was suggested we had 'rubber stamped' the recommendations of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee's master water plan.

Following the failed $70 million referendum on the 2012 MWP, GVAC and the Regional District of North Okanagan decided to form a stakeholder advisory committee to perform an independent review of all options considered in the MWP, as opposed to bearing the cost of yet another set of plans and engineers.

This SAC was made up of representatives from the business community, agriculture and the hospital.  In addition, several residential representatives were on board, including some with engineering backgrounds.  Years of experience was brought to the table with this committee, a representation of Greater Vernon.

The committee has met for the past eight months, often as much as three times a month.  We have had the benefit of engineers taking us through each option of the MWP, in addition to discussing the viability of new options.  We also had presentations from the financial officers involved in the MWP, furthering our understanding of the financial process with respect to costs, grants and future rates.

In addition, members of Interior Health educated us all on the legislation regarding our water quality and the required steps still needed to achieve that quality.

Our committee worked as one unit and in small groups.  We asked many questions and, yes, had more than one heated debate regarding what would be the most viable option for the MWP.  The majority of us came to this committee with open minds, hoping to understand the MWP in its entirety and to ensure RDNO chooses the most viable and cost-effective water plan for all of its users, including business, agriculture and residential.

In eight months of going through virtually the same process GVAC went through in rating the various MWP options, this committee, with totally different backgrounds, has also recommended the same option for the MWP.

Without going into the details of the process, this option was recommended for a number of reasons.  Total separation is cost prohibitive, with those options costing upwards of $50 million more than the recommended option.  While applied for, RDNO does not actually have the necessary water licenses on Okanagan Lake.  The MWP must address our needs now and the foreseeable future and cannot base a MWP on an option relying on a water source which we don't have adequate water licences for.

The option we recommended (also in 2012 MWP) has partial separation with the potential to fully separate the systems if that avenue ever becomes viable cost wise. (bold emphasis by blog author)  In addition, the recommended option has the ability to incorporate less costly treatment options should they become acceptable.  This option also has the highest benefit to cost based on life cycle costs.

Two treatment facilities allows for greater redundancy and ensures our area can avoid any boil water advisories and meet the required, by law, water quality standards of Interior Health.

So, yes, this committee did give our stamp, which was one of approval and not rubber."
          Monique Hubbs-Michiel

Separation of agricultural lines ... might be cheaper tomorrow?

 "She DID say not everyone on SAC was an engineer," suggests Kia.

That's obvious.


Besides, if ag lines were separated from domestic lines, who would pay for the maintenance of agricultural water lines?  Certainly not agriculture!

So they need domestic customers to keep paying for agriculture to put chlorinated--and soon to be filtered--water on crops and farmlands!

SAC Recommendation to GVAC

What does it mean?

Well, the following is an anonymous comment that dissects what the Stakeholders' Advisory Committee is going to recommend to GVAC and, presumably, have GVAC recommend to the Board of the Regional District:

* For 20% of domestic water supply,

we'll spend tons of money

to treat agricultural irrigation water

for the next 40-50 or more years!

* We'll spend $3.5 million to increase the

size of the agriculture main...in case

we do total separation

 which of course will never happen

(due to costs)!

*We gamble on a

 small watershed competing with agriculture

to supply 20% of domestic water

for those

who never paid for the domestic supply.

So, how will 1,000 signatories to the CCMWP petition react?  

How about the ~8,000 people who voted "NO" in the water referendum?  Ooops, reduce that number by the number of politicians who swore they also did not support the $70 million borrowing referendum!  You no doubt remember who they are.

Many people will remember at the next election.

"So the SAC windup is more accurately called the SAC blowup," offers Kia.

Yessireebob.

The Brilliant Gyula Kiss

...always has been, and always will be.
Yes, he's a brilliant man.
A scientist, unlike many decision-makers and politicians that oversee the Greater Vernon Water debacle (old or ongoing) in the North Okanagan.

But instead of reprinting his May 16th story "Is there scientific evidence for pending water shortages in Greater Vernon in 2016?", I'll just send you to his blog (scroll to the May 16th, 2016 story if it's no longer on the title page).

Click here to access Gyula's blog.

"We shouldn't let anyone but scientists be hired as bureaucrats or to run for political office," offers Kia.

Agreed!

Virtual Water Referendum?

Following this week's announcement that the Stakeholders' Advisory Committee would be making a recommendation to GVAC on May 19th to, essentially, maintain the existing Master Water Plan following the failed referendum to borrow $70 million in 2014, Kiss-FM Radio in Vernon has a poll.

Its online question is: 

"Do you agree with the Greater Vernon master water plan review recommending the current system remains the way it is?"

As of today, results are as follows:

 Yes      12.1%                           No        87.9% 

Check KISS-FM Radio website to see numbers. 

"I predict those numbers are virtually the same as results in the next election for incumbents," grins Kia.

 

 

It appears that thinking people have voted.

Maybe a few sheeple too. 

 

(Hmmmm...seems even the font is seeing RED).

RDNO Challenges Merriam-Webster

...on the definition of consensus.

No matter that Merriam-Webster has been in the dictionary business since 1831.
The Regional District of North Okanagan disputes the learned enterprise's definition of consensus.

Merriam-Webster's definition:  "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group".

All the people in a group.
Not some.
Not most.
All.

You decide.
Here's the Morning Star's story today, by Rolke.

"No changes for water plan"

Greater Vernon's master water plan appears to be largely unchanged.

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee was told Thursday that a stakeholders' advisory committee (SAC) is recommending Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake by maintained as drinking water sources and that two treatment plants remain.

"The majority is satisfied all feasible options have been considered," said Juliette Cunningham, GVAC chairperson who also sits on the SAC.

A bulk of the SAC also agreed that partial separation of agricultural land from treated water should occur.

Jim Garlick, GVAC director and SAC chairperson, supports having two water sources because of the flexibility it provides.

"There is no consensus..."  Terry Mooney, CCMWP

"If there is an emergency or repairs that need to be done, we can take care of that more easily," he said.

Terry Mooney, a SAC member, is blasting the actions of most of his colleagues.  "The majority wanted to rubber stamp what the consultant recommended," he aid, adding that he wasn't the only member opposed to a string of recommendations April 21.  "All of our objections were shot down.  There is no consensus."

"So any input from an opposing view was eliminated."  Gyula Kiss

Mooney insists total separation of agricultural land from treated water should occur.

"Duteau should be strictly for irrigation.  All domestic water should come from the Mission Hill treatment plant (Kal Lake) and eventually Okanagan Lake," he said.

Gyula Kiss, a Coldstream councillor, isn't surprised with the process' outcome.

"They wouldn't allow me to get on to the committee and then they eliminated me from GVAC," he said.
"So any input from an opposing view was eliminated."

Garlick says all information was provided to the SAC and the group was not forced to maintain the status quo with the master water plan.

"They didn't allow themselves to be pushed around.  They chose their own path," he said.

A 2014 referendum to borrow $70 million for the water plan was shot down by residents, and Garlick isn't sure what would be borrowed now.

"We have reserves and there could be other money to tighten it up," he said.

The stakeholders advisory committee will meet May 19th to discuss its final report, which will then go to GVAC for consideration."  Morning Star newspaper


"So Garlick admitted there was 'pushing around' when he stated that SAC didn't allow themselves to be pushed around...not for lack of trying" adds Kia.

Interestingly, in the same newspaper today there's a quotation in a letter to the editor (on an unrelated topic) that appears to sum up GVAC's and RDNO's year-long strategy of how they dealt with not only Gyula Kiss, but Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan's Terry Mooney:

"Before the opening of hostilities enlist the support of the masses

by first demonizing the enemy."

 

Of course there's a conflict of interest...the politicians that support the status quo were the politicians that approved it in the first place!  A face-saving strategy.

Aided and abetted by consultants and the media...

The outcome of the Master Water Plan's "review" wasn't unexpected.

The interesting thing is that there'll likely be another water borrowing referendum.
Perhaps the public's "consensus" will again be more pronounced than at SAC meetings.

Politicians should look up how Merriam-Webster defines the phrase municipal elections.

 

Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge Almost Over

Greater Vernon Water's Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings are almost at an end.
At the bottom of this blog entry is a summary of the process from Gyula Kiss.  It is also featured on his blog in an article dated March 29th.

Meetings are almost at an end.
And so are the sidelong glances.
The sweaty brows of consultants as they furtively eye their bureaucrat bosses.

So much for the Master Water Plan review!

Wink-wink?
Nudge-nudge?
Sidelong glances?

The biased charade known as the water Review includes the following:

You decide between whom the wink-wink, nudge-nudge, and sidelong glances occur!

The next meeting is slated for 8 a.m. Thursday, March 31st at the Regional District boardroom.

"Bring your own sidelong glances," suggests Kia.

All to protect Sacred Duteau...

You know Duteau...the water treatment plant whose winter treatment costs are $363 per Megalitre (versus $83 at Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant.

This from Gyula Kiss:

Comments on the GVWU’s Stakeholders Advisory Committee

The mandate of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC), appointed by RDNO Board of Directors for the review of the Master Water Plan (MWP) is nearing its end. During its existence members were bombarded by staff approved information regarding the options of the MWP. There was no input allowed from anyone with differing views. The process could have been better if open discussions between those supporting and those questioning the proposal were allowed.

The entire reason for the creation of the SAC was that some politicians rejected the proposed MWP prior to the referendum. Nearly all politicians stated publicly during the 2014 election campaign that they would vote “NO” on the borrowing referendum. That in itself indicated that not everything was right with the plan. Yet no dissenting voice is allowed to be heard by SAC members nor do we allow an independent reviewer.

SAC Committee members, average citizens,  were unfamiliar with the issues at hand. They needed all the available information for and against the MWP’s complicated options. They also needed some background information which led to the “need” for a MWP. This they did not receive. The Board of Directors decided that only existing consultants and staff would be allowed to provide information that they themselves would choose to this uninformed Committee to consider. Imagine what they retained from the meetings! Could they arrive at a balanced conclusion?

As the political representative on the MWP Technical Committee I am very familiar with all aspects of both Master Water Plans (yes, there were two: MWP 2002 and the current proposal!). As an elected representative of the taxpayers my only interest (some refer to it as “bias”) is to see the development of the most cost effective MWP that will serve the Greater Vernon area now and for the future. I not alone questioning the wisdom of filtering water to be used for crop irrigation.  My input and questions to the consultants could have helped SAC members to have a balanced view of the issues. They did not have to accept my views but they should have had an opportunity to hear them.

Taxpayers and SAC members may legitimately ask the question: If the proposed MWP is the best solution to the water problems of Greater Vernon how would an alternate view point hurt it? Staff and consultants should be happy to prove once and for all that they have a winner and opposing concerns are unjustified. Having denied an opportunity to raise critical questions diminishes the value of the SAC exercise and will cast a shadow on whatever conclusions will be provided by the SAC. It will create mistrust in the process. It would help SAC members to find out why some politicians could not support the MWP. It could also help if they could understand why most politicians stated that they would vote “NO” on the referendum question. Just like SAC members taxpayers in general are asking  those questions.

In future reports I will provide examples of where staff (including consultants) and I differ in our approach to a reliable and more cost effective MWP. If interested look for those reports on my blog (Google coldstreamernews to access the blog).

Gyula Kiss

Gyula Kiss deserves appreciation and effusive thank yous from a beleaguered public on the GVW system!