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!

Our Own Fake News

The United States isn't alone in the fake news phenomenon.

In fact, the North Okanagan area was likely the first to achieve that distinction with its consultant- and bureaucrat-biased "data" on the master water plan(s).

the Water Authority's ally...

Add to that the contrived biases of the Okanagan Basin Water Board and you've got a pack of liars that'll curl your hair.

So it's refreshing to get back to basics...something we residents can get our teeth into:

"Civil Servants must understand:

services required by their employers, the public,

must be provided cost effectively

and to the demand the public requires..."

G.Kiss                         

I recall years ago the OBWB stating in a national publication that residents of the Okanagan used "x times" more water than the average Canadian household.  Twice the Canadian average, they said, as my blog post of October 24th, 2015, indicated.

Shaming Okanagan residents nationally.
How nice!
All fake news to suit their purposes!


But Gyula Kiss has a handle on the numbers, thankfully, and presented them in his April 7th post here.
Here's his post on the fake news of the water authority and the OBWB:

Response to Anonymous comments on: Some real data on Greater Vernon water use

Anonymous said...

   “Let's not assume anything!

    Actual residential water usage in Greater Vernon is closer to 222 litres per person per day, not 675.  (open a new browser window, copy and paste the following URL into your browser to access the 20-page report from J.Miles in 2009).
 http://obwb.ca/obwrid/docs/337_2009_Residential%20ICI%20actual%20use%20(Miles).pdf    As Coldstreamer has calculated, we are already "doing the right thing" and conserving water (... probably because our rates are so high!).

    Same story with BC Hydro - customers do the right thing and conserve energy, and then the utility hikes the rates. We can't win.”

The above comment was in response to my blog post entitled: 

Some real data on Greater Vernon water use.The quoted reference by Anonymous was published by Jennifer Miles in 2009. She is currently employed by the North Okanagan Regional District.  The report shows even lower per capita water use than was calculated by me. That calculation was based on water use data provided by Greater Vernon Water in their Annual Reports between 2011-2015 (reported average annual per capita consumption at 307 liters per day per capita).

There are some questions that must be asked:

The 2012 Master Water Plan was designed for a domestic capacity of 9,670 ML in 2011, increasing in steps to 13,360 ML in 2052. At the estimated consumption of 222 l/d/p the 9,670 ML would have supported a population of 119,339. Why would the planners design such a huge oversized infrastructure for a population of ~55,000? They must have been aware of the report Jennifer Miles.
 
The 2052 consumption estimate of 13,360 ML would provide domestic water for a population of 164, 877 using the 222  per capita estimates. Would we anticipate that kind of growth in 40 years?
 

Even at the per capita consumption of 307 l/d/p, calculated by me based on actual data, the projected 2011 consumption of 9,670 ML would have supplied  over 86,000 people. That’s an oversize of 57%.

 One set of data that made a huge influence on the per capita consumption was the high ICI water consumption. Without the ICI consumption the current per capita consumption could be in the low to middle 200's.

Obviously, if the 222 l/d/p consumption figure was used to estimate future water demands the plant would have been undersized. However, the currently available empirical evidence should be considered prior to establishing future water demand figures. Should we not incorporate actual data collected over 5 (or now 6 years)?

As for “Let's not assume anything!”: scientific reports must always state the assumptions the author of the report made in collecting the data for the study and for the conclusions.

Civil Servants must understand: services required by their employers, the public, must be provided cost effectively and to the demand the public requires within the available resources. If we require the public to finance an infrastructure that exceeds their needs and/or the capacity of the resource, then the customers pay more than they need to pay."

Refreshing.
Yup, that's what calling out fake news leads to.
That we're not crazy;
that we're doing a good job at conserving water.

"But just think of all the folks that believe fake news," Kia would've said.

The Okanagan Basin Water Board's meme...

And it ain't over, based on this comment from staff, printed in the newspaper April 9th under the heading "Pressure grows for water plan."

"...However, staff insist that reviewing the master water plan has been proceeding, including public engagement."

Public engagement?
Total bullshit.
As usual.

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, 
 

Bureaucrats "Misappropriating" Data?

Fudging.
Flat out lying.
That's probably more accurate.

Yup, that's what bureaucrats do.
The end justifies the means.

Anyone with half a brain who was involved in the year-long Stakeholders' Advisory Committee meetings at RDNO regarding the Master Water Plan will know.

Remember when all the Technical Memoranda (1 through 9) and bureaucrat/consultant submissions and publications stated that agricultural water use wasn't expected to increase beyond reported (current) levels?

The bureaucratic requisite...

The Rolke story entitled "Regional growth strategy on track" (January 4/17) kinda disputes that and confirms what most people have suspected/known all along.

Judge for yourself:

"...The growth strategy is also focused on supporting farming and there has been an increase in the agricultural land base."

'Farm diversity is up,' said Marnie Skobalski, planner.

'The range of farm commodities being produced is on the rise'."

Not just "the range"...the sheer number of farm properties is wayyyyyy up.
Get in your car and drive around.
See for yourself.
See the formerly fallow land (from previous drive-arounds) that are now planted to new orchards, for example.

Is agricultural water use increasing?
You bet your socks it is!
But the numbers won't be released by RDNO/GVW for at least a few more years, as is typical.

"Maybe they're watering with IOUs," Kia would've said, "for their water arrears."

In addition to increased crop plantings, there's also a huge increase in the number of Rent-a-Cow farmers.  (Renting part of your land gives you--the homeowner--the farm rate for property taxes...plus of course the dirt-cheap water rate).

What we all learn from bureaucrats at GVW and RDNO

  Priceless.

Resplendent Rotarians

It wasn't because the article was about water that I thought of the Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings when I read the history of the Klamath Water Wars.
Or maybe it was.

But something other than water connected the two.
Or, more accurately, separated the two events.

Before you "x" out of here and return to TV, read the compelling story on Water Wars link.  An excellent story in the publication Rotarian, December 2016 issue, "Common Ground", healing a troubled Oregon community at odds over water.

Apart from the distance that separated the Klamath Oregon area from the North Okanagan, the glaring separation for me was what a Rotarian provided Oregon...trust.

The Rotarian organization has something called The Four-Way Test, and it goes like this:

(1)    Is it the TRUTH?

(2)    Is it FAIR to all concerned?

(3)    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

(4)     Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

With this entrenched tenet, Rotarian Jim Root waded deeper into the human community that was his home, and he got committee members together, many of whom had become enemies during the water issues. 

Jim--at the first meeting, a breakfast meeting--set up a whiteboard that stated:

Develop trust.

Actions consider the entire community.

Balance flow of water in and out of the community.

Improve water quality considering "good ecology equals good economy."

The bureaucratic/political system (polar opposite to the Rotarian Way)

While Jim Root wasn't a miracle worker, he did get people to continue talking, and venting too.
He said they'd take a time out after venting and then start again.

All the while my mind returned to the four-way test and whether it should have been a prerequisite during the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings. 

Would the four-way test have changed things with the "citizen review" of the master water plan? 

While reading the story, I couldn't help but think that our area's water stakeholder advisory committee meetings, (many local government meetings for that matter...yes, having attended many!) are just sedentary exercises, never resembling the potential to become kinetic...living, functional things, leave-the-meeting-feeling-good type of events.
Even on good days.

It was all bureaucratic and political machinations and manipulation of the public!

So much for "Is it the TRUTH?" and "Develop Trust".

Greater Vernon Water customers--residents--didn't believe they were hearing the truth either in the meetings or in the sparse follow-up newspaper stories.  So no-one was surprised that trust didn't develop.

So, folks, next time there's an important meeting--or an election--invite a Rotarian.

Maybe even to run as Mayor(s).
That'd be very hopeful.


As an aside (and he'll probably be angry if he learns of this...)

Yes, I receive the truth from him.

The Sham of "Conserving"

All it leads to is an increased unit cost to you, the purchaser.

Whether it's fuelled by outright lies--as is now known to be the case in the B.C. government's "need" for Hydro's Site C--or unbelievable bureaucratic biases whose strategy to have long-sitting politicians save face--who approved the Master Water Plan in the first place--it's become a contagion.

Government lies.
Bureaucratic lies.
Consultants manipulating data.
Arm's-length appointed committees--over whom the electorate has no control--making the rules.  Cases in point:  the B.C. Utilities Commission, to whom Hydro goes for approval of new rates, and the Okanagan Basin Water Board, who now issue provincial grants to municipalities!

Both the BCUC and OBWB have focused on conservation as a tool to conserve (BCUC) electricity and (OBWB) water.

While this blog would never ever promote wasting either water or electricity, get a load of this story in the local Morning Star today...and think of your Greater Vernon water rate increases while reading.

Its title tells it all:  "B.C. Hydro rates rise as demand slows.  (excerpts only, highlighting by blog author)

B.C. Hydro is going ahead with its planned four per cent rate increase this year and deferring more debt to future years as it revises its electricity demand forecast downward. 

The provincially-owned utility has not asked (BCUC!) for an increase in its government-imposed rate plan despite a revised demand forecast with $3.5 billion less revenue over the next 10 years.  Hydro has filed a three-year plan with the BCUC that increases rates 4, 3.5 and 3.0 per cent in the next 3 years.

That's a 10.5 per cent increase over the additional new rates we've been paying for the last four or five years! 

B.C. Hydro is seeing lower revenues (does that sound familiar, GVW water customers????) due to two warm winters and downturns in mining and forest products.

Critic Adrian Dix states Hydro should have added a sixth turbine to the Revelstoke dam (at $450 million) versus forging ahead with the Site C dam ... a $9 billion project!"


Blog readers...for a wayyyyy more accurate--and damaging expose of B.C. Hydro, and how the B.C. Liberals have been draining its coffers dry (now ICBC isn't the sole victim!), you simply must read this Site C article by blogger extraordinaire, Norman Farrell. 

Then go back to his Home Page here to learn the ongoing deceptions of the B.C. Liberals.

"There's no antibiotic that'll rid voters of the lies contagion," says Kia, adding "look at how it's spreading among politicians and the bureaucracy."

Indeed.
Sadly, they're learning from one another.

Lies, Lies, Everywhere Lies...

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.

Another Water Referendum?

Another to follow the failed referendum of November 2014?

Maybe this time elected officials won't tell voters they agree that the referendum should fail.
And then do an about-face and suddenly support the Master Water Plan--the reason for the referendum--again.

But then again, there are no municipal/city elections on the slate...October 20th, 2018 is the next.

Yesterday's Morning Star story by Rolke, under the heading Water details refined:


"Specific details are being hammered out for Greater Vernon's water utility.

Members of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee met Wednesday to consider recommendations from a stakeholders group that reviewed the master water plan.

'We're moving forward and trying to keep it as affordable as possible,' said director Jim Garlick.

A primary task for administration will be developing costs and how much money may have to be put before voters in a borrowing referendum.

The process calls for Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake to be maintained as water sources and that two treatment plants remain.

GVAC is expected to proceed with filtration at Mission Hill treatment plant before Duteau Creek.

Juliette Cunningham, GVAC chairperson, insists there is a tight timeline to get all of the planning work done.

'We want to come to a final decision on a plan because we'd like to get it to the province (for approval) as soon as possible,' she said.

'We want to be ready to apply for grants'."


"It has to go to the province for approval?" asks Kia, incredulously....

Ms. Cunningham likely meant the water plan will be eligible for provincial grants once Interior Health approves it.

It's unlikely the North Okanagan would be eligible for Ottawa's grants...since we voted Conservative during the election.

Prove us wrong, Mr. Trudeau.
Please.

Harvey Lake Found--ha ha

It's part of the Duteau system...actually. 
Yup.
Not some newly-discovered water source near Grizzly Swamp.
Not some indistinct Gold Paradise water bog.

Who knew?
Obviously not me.

Here's details, this from Technical Memorandum 3:

"The outlet at Haddo supplies the controlled releases to Lower Duteau Creek  ... further downstream at Harvey Lake."

"Harvey Lake is the headpond created on Lower Duteau Creek for the main pipeline diversion into the GVW distribution system.  The head pond and associated infrastructure were completed in the late 1960s..."...travelling intake screens, gas chlorination system, flow meter and telemetry.  AECOM (2006) identified Harvey Lake potential upgrades to the headgates as part of the Duteau WTP upgrades."

"Prior to construction of the Duteau WTP, GVW commissioned Earthtech (2005) to examine options...updating the Harvey Lake intake.  The intake pond requires dredging every five to ten years...frequently cleaning silt and debris from the infrastructure.  The study examined different forms...prevention and complete bypass.  The study summarized that the most economical option was to replace the infrastructure one day."

Source:  EarthTech 2005 Harvey Lake By-Pass Feasibility Study - Final Report Greater Vernon Water Utility.

See this document:  Headgates Dam Improvements (Ref #372-14-14.03)  regarding sediment removal and the protection of incubating Coho Salmon eggs. 

Harvey Lake found...it's basically Duteau "headgates"

"Sheesh...", exclaims Kia.

The plot thickens now with three water sources...yup, three (technically).
A whole new Vernon irrigation system is born?

At the expense of domestic customers...who will be paying for the entire system...always.

Democracy Denied

Great title.

Dennis Windsor's letter to the editor, published today, dealt with the Master Water Plan fiasco (and what ensued since the November 2014 borrowing referendum for $70 million was denied by the electorate).

It's frankly what many other folks have said too.
Here's Dennis' letter:


"The elected officials and administrative staff in charge of Greater Vernon Water appear to have forgot(sic) that their mandate is to serve the interests of all citizens supplied by Greater Vernon's water utility.

In the fall of 2014, voters in all jurisdictions served by GVW overwhelmingly defeated a referendum to borrow tens of millions of dollars to implement the master water plan (MWP).

"How long can GVW continue to justify

the high costs to treat Duteau Creek water

to potable quality and then apply that water

to agricultural crops?"

D.Windsor

By the spring of 2015, the politicians' response to the referendum defeat was to form a stakeholder advisory committee to review the MWP, with the SAC membership to be comprised of people from various categories of water users.

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee and GWV(sic) administration screened the applicants for the SAC and established the terms of reference for the SAC deliberations.  The committee meetings were chaired and managed by a GVAC member.

The SAC was subjected to lengthy reports of the development of the currently MWP and GVAC system.  The SAC meetings focused on non-cost aspects of the water utility.  There were no in-depth reviews of system operations, budgets or customer willingness and ability to pay.

In the course of more than 10 meetings over the past year, each lasting several hours, SAC members had little opportunity for input or open discussion.  It appears the SAC was formed and manipulated to product(sic) the desired stay the course result.  GVAC's recent announcement of  'no charge(sic) required to the MWP' is not surprising.

But what happens now?  Where will GVW get the funding required to implement the MWP which includes, among other capital items, upgrades to the Duteau reservoirs and treatment systems?

How long can GVW continue to justify the high costs to treat Duteau Creek water to potable quality and then apply that water to agricultural crops?  Will Duteau Creek even be a reliable water source if there is sustained severe drought?

During a drought who has priority access to the limited water supply -- agricultural or residential customers?  Any day now, GVW will demand cutbacks in water use in anticipation of a drought and will follow that by announcing increases in water rates or base rates so they can meet their budget.  The only plan appears to be GVW's intent to continue the Duteau folly and pay for it with ridiculously high water rates.

Unfortunately, when the customer balks and revenue no longer covers expenditures, our elected officials will have no choice but to make up with the shortfall through tax levies since the public has already said a resounding no to borrowing.  We have to pay, no matter what.

GVW customes are the majority of voters in Vernon, Coldstream and the portions of Areas B and C.  How GVW implements the master water plan, how our water needs are met and what are changed for our water service will be closely watched.

Elected officials, as they should be, eventually will answer for the narrow-sighted actions of GVW.  Time will tell if the core of democracy, the will of the people, still prevails."
                                 D.Windsor

Click map to enlarge:

The Duteau system, source consultant report.

"Potable--and soon to be filtered--water being applied to agricultural crops is, frankly, an insane waste of money," says Kia, "but GVW doesn't care what they do with OUR money...neither do elected officials."


Elected officials will eventually answer for the decisions they've allowed GVW to make.
Take solace in that.

And Dennis Windsor should read Rafe Mair's take on Democracy...dead or dying here.
It's as though Rafe were writing about our area's water fiasco.

Especially the part about the media not doing its job!
But Rolke's priority is a rainbow-painted crossing in Coldstream.

Two Battles Ended

Gyula Kiss' vehement opposition to the 2012 Master Water Plan--and biases of bureaucrats, consultants and politicians alike--has been unwavering.

At Thursday's Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting, Mr. Kiss continued to oppose the "biased" information that had been provided to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee that led to the committee's recommendation to maintain the two existing water sources and the two existing treatment facilities.

As reported by Rolke in today's Morning Star story, Mr. Kiss said the committee did not consider broad-based information. 
No-one would argue that broad-based information had not been provided the committee.

"When it came time to receive the stakeholder report for information, Kiss did not raise his hand as opposed.  Chairperson Cunningham tried to clarify Kiss' vote," said the story, "but did not get a response."

"I guess he's in favour," Cunningham said.

No, he's not.
But he knows his water battle has ended.
And he was--understandably--preoccupied during the meeting.

Because another battle had just ended.
A very personal one.
Mr. Kiss' wife, Debbie Gibson, lost her battle to cancer nine days ago.

So it was only through his incredible commitment to the community--and the water situation--that he even attended the Thursday meeting.

Two battles have ended for Mr. Kiss.

Residents offer sincere sympathy to the Kiss family on their bereavement.

And our considerable thanks for his efforts on the water battle.

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.

Foregone Conclusion

It wasn't unexpected.
But members of Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan and area water customers are pleased that the results have come with a twist.

The last SAC meeting concluded this week with committee recommendations to GVAC, which will likely be adopted and forwarded to the RDNO Board, that include a few things that would not have occurred had CCMWP not responded to 1,000 signatories who opposed water rates under GVW, not to mention the majority of residents who denied a $70 million borrowing referendum in November of 2014.

The items SAC recommended -- that vary from bureaucrats' and consultants' original plan -- are:

• the east Coldstream partial separation of agricultural from domestic water will eventually lead to additional separation.
• filtration is recommended to proceed at Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant first, and then at Duteau Creek (following the hoped-for deferral or exclusion at Duteau).
• a role for the public may continue as the master water plan unfolds.

Naturally, bureaucrats and GVAC sitting politicians will put pressure on Interior Health because they all want filtration to proceed first at Duteau.  That is expected (by many people) to occur behind closed doors, as have many of the decisions and manipulations and biases since the referendum failed.  Including discussions on how to remove Gyula Kiss, the 2012 MWP's nemesis, from having his opposition published, meeting after meeting.

Even Interior Health should know how irate the public is.
Ignore the public wish at your peril.
Considerable quality improvements can be made to the upland water source simply by getting off their butts and supporting government agencies who can stop mud-boggers, illegal campers without bio-toilets, etc. etc. from contaminating our water source.

So will there be another referendum?
Sitting politicians don't want a two-peat (repeat) failure; neither does GVW.  Apparently, "funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue", as reported in the article reprinted below.

Word has it that there's $19 million in reserves...plus the ever-increasing rates.
GVW would do well to start using the reserves, as existing customers are already tired of paying for the area's future customers. 

Here's the Morning Star story today:

"Master water plan moves ahead", by Rolke:

Greater Vernon's master water plan has overcome a major hurdle.

On Wednesday, members of a stakeholders advisory committee unanimously agreed to recommended(sic) a direction on the master water plan to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

'It's the most viable option,' said Monique Hubbs-Michiel, a SAC member. 
The group has recommended that Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake be maintained as drinking water sources and that two treatment plants remain.  It also wants partial separation of agricultural land from treated water primarily in eastern Coldstream.

GVAC is also being urged to proceed with filtration at the Mission Hill treatment plant before the Duteau Creek facility.

Terry Mooney, a SAC member, levelled criticism at the process Wednesday but ultimately he raised his hand in favour of the final recommendation.

'There's no point in opposing it because the majority of the committee decided otherwise,' said Mooney, who represented Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan.

'I didn't achieve 100 per cent of the objectives my group wanted, but it's headed in the right direction."
Mooney is pleased there will be a role for the public as the master water plan unfolds.

The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan had pushed for a peer (blog:  professional consultant) review of the water plan, but that request was denied by the SAC.

'I've looked through all of the numbers and I don't see anyone magically coming up with another conclusion," said Don Gibbs, SAC member.

The full scope of the master water plan is about $108 million over 50 years but the cost could depend on factors such as government grants and filtration being deferred or not occurring at Duteau. While a referendum is possible, funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue.

The SAC recommendation will now go to GVAC for consideration and finally to the Regional District of North Okanagan board.

Jim Garlick, SAC chairperson, is confident that the process will continue.  "We need to make some decisions and move on.  It will never be perfect but it will be an improvement," he said.

     Morning Star newspaper, May 20, 2016

"Wonder if Garlick remembers the Adopted Motion(s) from a GVAC meeting last year," says Kia.

Good point.

In case Garlick et al have forgotten...here they are again:

Adopted Motions:

1.  Councillor Lord asked that a Communications Strategy for dealing with the Review be adopted such that the public could be informed on each question. Adopted

2.  Coldstream Mayor Garlick said the defeat of the Referendum bought valuable time for a review to be undertaken.  And that Standards for water quality, pricing and delivery have changed and are in the process of change, that the review incorporate these changes in its process.  Adopted

3.  Councillor Kiss requested the review focus on a MWP that addresses the future needs of the water user base, and that as Okanagan Lake is the most reliable water source where the least amount of treatment is needed, that the review include the viability of the OK Lake as the principal water source. Adopted

4.  Filtration exclusion and deferral issues were discussed and GVW management explained the current situation with respect to IHA and that it should be included in the review. Adopted

5.  Bob Spiers asked if a review could include the cost of treating the entire volume of Duteau water as compared with other treatment options. Adopted

6.  Mayor Garlick asked that public involvement in the review follow the model set and adopted by the Municipalities at the provincial level whereby a public committee was struck to provide feedback into decision-making relative to MWP allowing politicians and staff to have maximum input to direction.   Adopted

7.  Director Fleming asked if  "current demand levels" projected to 2020 and on, be considered in the review. Adopted

 

8. A question respecting the differing levels of supply by Quarter be included in the review.  Adopted

9. Redundancy of sources and the management of supply should be reviewed as Duteau, Kal, Coldstream Creek, King Edward Lake, and Okanagan Lake all are in the picture. Adopted

10.  Whether one treatment plant could supply all needs from all sources. Adopted

11.  Mayor Garlick proposed that the principle of  "need of supply type" be adopted to guide supply management.  In other words, if a user needs potable water, user pays for potable water.  Adopted.

12.  Question to minimize the use of treated water on agricultural lands.  Adopted

13.  Councillor Cunningham advised everyone to take a "step back" and work with the public on developing a new MWP that serves the needs of the entire community.  Adopted

14.  Mayor Garlick proposed that staff investigate hiring a communications specialist. Develop a communications strategy to facilitate the flow of information to and from public and press throughout MWP review process. The intent is to draw people in to the process.  Adopted

 

 

Kia has another comment:

"Had SAC's 'seat warmers'--and the odd 'mole' not been on the committee, citizens would've seen considerably more changes..."

You've got that correct.


Garlick should re-read #11, "need of supply type".
Highlands Golf needs non-potable water to irrigate the course, but it's not available.
So non-potable rates should apply to the irrigation water meter consumption.