More than one person said opposing GVW's plan would fail.
And that was way back following the 2014 failed $70 million water borrowing referendum after which the grassroots group Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan was formed.
Many of the group's members are of a generational mindset that scoffs at quitting for that reason alone.
Forecasted failure simply meant more work was required.
So the group persevered.
The group's diverse membership was spurred on to proceed.
An outraged public attended numerous presentations, the most notable being a standing-room-only event at the Schubert Center.
CCMWP members were aghast at the lack of procedural fairness (indeed, common sense) with Master Water Plan 2012 (versus its predecessor MWP 2002 which planned line twinning and raw water for large irrigators).
Little line twinning would occur with Plan 2012 and domestic customers would continue to bear the brunt of a growing agriculture industry that irrigated lands with chlorinated -- yes, chlorinated -- water. Agriculture paid barely four per cent of Greater Vernon Water's annual budget.
The deeply-entrenched Ag industry took solace from a majority of elected officials who "had their backs". But for a lone elected official at the District of Coldstream--councillor Gyula Kiss--who sounded frequent warnings of the inequity of MWP 2012, domestic customers felt powerless that they would continue to fund the North Okanagan's water system improvements.
In a monumental flip-flop during the municipal and city elections, the majority of elected officials even assured their constituents they would vote No in the $70 million referendum.
And then changed their minds!
And continued on in their Greater Vernon Advisory Committee roles, whose decision would ultimately decide the fate of the water plan...albeit after a stakeholder committee was formed, spending eight months hearing biased data from politicians and consultants. Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan were instrumental in the formation of a SAC committee, having recommended a professional peer review.
 | |
| Spurious data--many of which showed water consumption 50 per cent higher than actual--formed spreadsheets and consulting reports that promoted the "need" for the gravity-fed upland water system to be enhanced, versus citizen wishes that Okanagan Lake would be less vulnerable to climate change than the "Duteau Ditch", as it has been called. |
Councillor Kiss was even turfed from regular voting on the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee due to a recently discovered and conveniently-timed technicality that applied to Alternate directors.
While it thankfully didn't silence Mr. Kiss' opposition, it gave elected officials at GVAC a bit of a smoother ride during meetings.
Such was what awaited the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Basically a stacked deck.
This hit the local paper on July 24th (Knox story, Morning Star), as featured on Bob Spiers' vernonblog:
"Greater Vernon Water’s 2012 master water plan will not be reviewed by an independent engineer. Regional District of North Okanagan directors voted almost unanimously with a Greater Vernon Water Advisory Committee recommendation not to hire an independent engineer to conduct a peer review as requested by the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. RDNO directors voted in favour of nine recommendations from the advisory committee, including a scheduled review of the MWP be completed every five-to-10 years or prior to the construction of any significant capital project. The lone dissenter was alternate Vernon director Scott Anderson. “Asking for a peer review is not way out there in left field, it’s something that’s a fairly standard operating procedure,” said Anderson. “With a small investment in a peer review, we’ll potentially save money, gain credibility with the public and do what’s actually expected.” But Vernon director Juliette Cunningham said a review of the plan will take place “each and every time a major investment to the plan happens.” A 2014 referendum to borrow up to $70 million to undertake Phase 1 projects identified in trhe plan failed, which led to the creation of a stakeholder advisory committee to review the MWP. “I’ve sat at every stakeholder meeting with people representing commercial, agricultural, residential and industrial interests,” said Cunningham. “Part of that committee is made up of at least three engineers. “A tremendous amount of work has already been done.” The stakeholder advisory group voted in May to recommend to Greater Vernon Water 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. RDNO directors agreed to the recommendations Wednesday. The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan had pushed for a peer review of the water plan, but that request was denied by the stakeholders. 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 another referendum is possible, funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue."
Bob Spiers summarizes:
"The 'recommended chosen' option 2 by SAC Committee is a $111 million dollar expenditure that should have a peer review or an engineering/operational/financing review before it is reincorporated into the master water plan for Interior Health blessing and approval.
We originally managed to get a Peer Review of Duteau Filtration and that $30,000 study concluded that the cost of this method could reduce the Filtration Costs at Duteau from the $26.5 million Filtration in Option 2 (http://www.rdno.ca/docs/TM10_Financial_Plan_FINAL.pdf ) to between $8 and $10 million for the ultraviolet and scrubbing method as recommended in this peer review (if approved by IHA)"
Bob Spiers continues: "I asked for a peer review before the last election and referendum and still feel that when we are requiring a $111 million expenditure (with $26.5 million for Duteau Filtration and $30 million for Mission Hill Filtration in 2022) that we pursue a professional review." Bob Spiers
 |
| bureaucrats' operating procedures... |
So...citizens turned down a $70 million borrowing referendum only to now be faced with a Cadillac system that will cost $111 million!
CLARIFICATION RESULTING FROM READER COMMENT:
The option 2 which was incorporated into the master water plan was always to cost $111 million. The $70 million borrowing was for the first phase with an additional $41 million to be borrowed in 2022. (mostly for the Filtration at mission hill.) At the borrowing rates at the time this would have necessitated a 30% increase in water rates with a further 17% in 2022.
So where to from here?
Terry Mooney, chair of CCMWP states: "on September 27, 2015, the membership of CCMWP adopted the following Mission Statement:
"The main objective of Citizens for Changes to the
Master Water
Plan is two-fold:
- achieve a Review of the 2012 Master
Water Plan by the GVAC, and
- achieve the inclusion of an independent,
expert, funded consultant,
whose mandate is to provide unbiased, professional,
technical support to the Review process"
A Reluctant Good-Bye:
Terry Mooney, chair of CCMWP continues:
"The Review process called for was initiated largely due to pressure generated through the public outreach efforts of the
CCMWP culminating in the formation of the SAC in June , 2015 and active involvement of our group in an eight-month
Review of the 2012 MWP.
Now that the regional district has officially denied our request
for involvement of an independent consultant, it is
incumbent upon our group to report to the public our perceptions of the outcome of the Review process.
The public is grateful for what you and your group have achieved, Terry.
Please be assured of that.
Without CCMWP--and your leadership--the stacked deck that for many years has defined area bureaucracy and political governance would've assured an angry and uninformed electorate.
At least now the public is informed.
This blog will leave the last word to Councillor Kiss:
"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, folks, when you purchase fresh fruits and veggies from the local farmers' markets," suggests Kia "remember to look the grower in the eye and say You're Welcome."
...for subsidizing (actually, almost free) his water costs this year.
And into the future.
