Step Up, Interior Health

Put on your big boots and barge into the bureaucratic tangle.
The way you've barged into the paying public's lives with your demand for water filtration.

There are so many bureaucratic agencies and ministries involved on the Aberdeen Plateau...the area where the majority of Greater Vernon's water originates...that one would be hard pressed to think that yet another division of government is actually lacking.

But it is.

The Regional District of North Okanagan has, for many years, been aware of conflicting uses at the watershed.  Not only aware, but working at considerable annual expense to replace or repair vandalized signage and gatehouses,  communication infrastructure, fences, reservoir slopes and power supply, etc. etc. from the apparently rampant misuse by members of the public.    See May, 2015 entries here and here.

But it isn't until one reads the current agenda submission for GVAC that the urgency of misuse by the public on the area's drinking water becomes readily apparent.  The Grizzly Reservoir Management (page 2 of 43 here) Strategy--not even the entire system of Duteau reservoirs on the Aberdeen Plateau--is discussed in considerable detail. 
The Regional District calls it "recreational pressure", beginning on page 9 of 43.
Sheesh.
Taxpayers call it by its most accurate description:  "Threats to our Water Supply".

One can easily imagine the exponential impact of the public's misuse on the rest of the plateau's water storage systems.

Where are bureaucrats from Interior Health?  Not present, except one mention that they might be involved some time!
Yet the expansive list includes Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources; Recreation Officers;
Recreation and Trails B.C.; Senior Dam Operators; Conservation Officers; Forestry and Range tenure holders identified in the Land and Resource Management Plan.  
All those bureaucrats.


Greater Vernon Water states it has "taken the lead in planning to protect water quality and water supply infrastructure in the Duteau Creek watershed, the water utility doesn't have the capacity to undertake long term planning assessments of the area's carrying capacity for recreational activities and camping on the Aberdeen Platea." 

Bull feathers.
Come on folks.

Whether the solution is to apply for a Lease (on Crown Land), or encourage another bureaucratic agency to set up Recreational Sites, it doesn't matter.
What does matter is urgency.

Especially when the water supply of ~50,000 residents can be seriously affected.  Any day.

The Duteau Creek Water Assessment plan has identified that recreational use in the watershed will continue to increase.  Camping, fishing, boating and off-road vehicles are of considerable concern.
There's discussion about electric motors on Haddo Lake.  (An aerial view of the lakes is provided within those Agenda pages).

Of prime interest to customers of Greater Vernon Water is "Disposal of Human Waste" (begins on page 14 of 43 at the Agenda link provided above.)  

Disposal of human waste?
Huh?
Where our water supply originates?
Yup.

So what's the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Recreation Office doing?
They're writing pamphlets!

And camping in reservoir areas?
It "should be restricted to designated areas that limit contamination of reservoirs".
Yeah.
Should be, but it hasn't been done in all these years.
But GVWater has "designed and placed signs".
Huh?
Signs?

And apparently GVW is going to "investigate 'vulnerability mapping' of high and medium sensitivity zones".
Sheesh.
Investigate?
Map?

How about doing something about public misuse.
Today.
This week.
This month.

Take Interior Health up there.
They can impose their health and safety regulations first to our Government in Victoria, then to Greater Vernon Water.  Order a fast-track solution to water safety.

Do it.



"Maybe GVW is waiting for another Walkerton before moving on this,"  muses Kia.

Hope not.
Stakeholders my foot!

It's time to designate Priority Use on the entire Aberdeen Plateau.
After all, what's more important than the safety of residents' drinking water?

Water Issues Dominate Newspaper

...as they should, considering the topic is THE most talked about among residents of the North Okanagan.

The Morning Star published the following today:

"Water Committee Membership Determined (Rolke):

A previous role in Greater Vernon's failed water process won't stop individuals from taking a leadership role in the future.

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee voted Thursday not to rule anyone out for membership on the master water plan stakeholder advisory committee.

'Who's on it shold be based on what they bring to the table,' said director Bob Fleming.

It had been recommended that participants in the advisory committee not have prevoius involvement in the master water plan process, which led to an unsuccessful $70 million referendum last fall.

'Anyone involved before from this (GVAC) committee on the previous technical advisory group would be disqualified,' said director Bob Spiers.

Staff insists that it wasn't trying to restrict who takes part in the advisory committee.

'The intent was to say we're trying to provide as fresh a look as possible,' said David Sewell, Regional District of North Okanagan chief administrative officer.

'We don't want to be burdened potentially with the biases associated with the development of previous plans.'

The Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce has asked for a seat at the stakeholders' table.

'We request that the regional district reflect on ways in which the business and investment community can be engaged in any discussion as you move forward,' said Jaron Chasca, chamber president, in a letter.

'The establishment of a multi-stakeholder steering committee such as was done with the development of the regional cultural plan may be of value in this situation.'

Juliette Cunningham, GVAC chairperson, says the chamber's request will be considered.

'They have a good communications network and getting feedback from their members,' she said.

GVAC will begin advertyising for potential stakeholders committee members soon.

'We will have to see how much interest there is.  We want buy-in from taxpayers,' said Cunningham.

'We want them to understand why we need a master water plan.'

"...Didn't want to be burdened with biases?" intones Kia, adding "then install an independent consultant in place of staff engineers at the table, opposite SAC members." 

"Rules May Restrict Funds (Rolke):

A politician forecasts tighter water restrictions will leave the utility's budget high and dry.

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee has initiated stage one water restrictions in the hope of decreasing consumption during the hot weather.  (BLOG NOTE:  No public record exists of GVAC having met mere days before their regularly scheduled July 9th meeting when the stage one water restrictions were announced in the newspaper, so the public believes bureaucrats enacted the restriction without GVAC directors' approval.)

'I agree with conservation but we will lose revenue for the utility,' said director Bob Spiers, adding that a 10 per cent reduction in residential consumption could reduce revenue by $158,000 in Vernon in the third quarter.

Staff insists stage one restrictions are needed because of the ongoing dry conditions. 

'We are doing heightened awareness and targeting water waste,' said Zee Marcolin, utility manager.  'We want people to know what they should be doing.  There's a lot of watering of roadways.'

Marcolin added that larger agricultural customers are also being contacted about conservation.

'We want to hit this hard so we can stay away from stage two.'
  
( BLOG NOTE:  Want to see just how much more you'll pay WHEN you reduce your domestic water consumption by 10 per cent?  Click on this link, and see Table 1 and Table 2.  Created by Gyula Kiss, GVAC member. Even more revenue will be lost than the tables indicate...Hillview Golf Course has drilled a well and constructed a reservoir...their invoice for 2014 was projected to increase to $43,000 from $33,000). 

"The water authority isn't telling people of that effect, are they?" says Kia.

 
"Watersheds draw scrutiny (Rolke):

Mudboggers roaring around watersheds have local communities calling for action.

The Okanagan Basin Water Board discussed the issue of source protection Tuesday and specifically recreational activities that threaten water quality and critical infrastructure, such as dams.

'I don't know how we get around the recreational aspect and desecration?' said director James Baker.

Much of the discussion revolved around the Greater Vernon Water Utility's experience with people entering the Duteau Creek watershed.

'They love to get out in their ATVs and four-by-fours,' said Renee Clark, GVWU water quality manager.

'The reservoirs get drawn down in the summer and it looks like a great place to go and play.'

Another concern is what all-terrain vehicles do to the integrity of dams holding back reservoirs.

'If they breach, the inundation area is Lumby and there would be property damage.  Who would be liable for that?  We would' said Clark, adding that the water utility owns the dam and is responsible for safety.

'We have tried to fence the dams but it's a big area and new routes are found.'

There have also been problems with other infrastructure being damaged and warning signs being shot and utility staff must clean up the trash and human waste left behind (there are no outhouses at the reservoirs).

Clark says the situation at Duteau Creek is experienced in watersheds throughout the Okanagan and something must be done.

'Let's find some way to do this from a political and policy perspective' she said.

'If we can protect the source, treatment is a lot less.'

Presently, a license of occupation through the provincial government doesn't allow for exclusive use of a watershed by a utility.

Among the possible options are leasing the land to prevent recreational activities or establishing recreational campsites at reservoirs so there are(sic...would be) some guidelines in place.

Clark isn't convinced that formal campsites will work given summer conditions at reservoirs.

'The lakes are drawn down in August so they're not a place people will hang out at (to camp) but people will still ATV,' she said.

Doug Findlater, OBWB chairperson, points out that there was an issue with ATVs in the Bear Creek watershed, off of Westside Road, and various agencies came together to create formal trains and enforcement.

'They took control of it and allowed people in but under controlled conditions,' he said."

"Public abuse of the area has been going on for decades, and GVW is only yabbering about it now?" asks Kia, adding, "heaven forbid they'd actually do something effective like contacting the provincial government and implement something...anything to improve the situation.  Nope...they're too busy controlling the rest of us to focus on watershed abuse!"

And two letters to the editor:

"Real Change Needed in Water Plan:
I suppose it's encouraging to learn from your article of June 14 that yet another water review is on tap.  Personally, I would have preferred some decisions.  My second choice would have been to take a blank piece of paper and have an independent consultant start afresh.

Instead I see I will get my least druthers approach, a finagling rehash of what we voters have rejected by a two to one margin or, to be precise, by 7918 nays to 3999 yeas.  I thought the message thus sent to the water gurus and politicos was quite clear; people want a no frills water system that is safe and reliable and does not cost twice as much as ratepayers pay in Kelowna and Penticton.

This is not rocket science.

Every community needs water and has a water utility to provide it for them at reasonable cost.  Sometimes glitches occur such as Walkerton.  After all to err is human.

Unfortunately, the North Okanagan has a murky water syndrome.

Greater Vernon takes water from far away ponds fed by another watershed that reaches us via creeks flowing through cow pastures, dog parks, farm fields and other assorted odds and sods that do not add to its clarity then spends mega bucks to make it potable before selling most of it at a fraction of what domestic users are soaked to grow food for cows.  Brilliant.

One good thing about exorbitant water costs is how good that is for conservation.

Domestic ratepayers in Greater Vernon have cut back their water usage by a third to a half over the past five years depending upon the time period/data selection used; from 350 cubic meters to maybe as low as 175, certainly less than 250.

The water utility raised rates, ratepayers then used less water.  That meant the water utility was not able to cover its costs.  Obvious answer:  reduce costs.  Nope.

The water utility opted to raise base fees instead.  Today, most domestic ratepayers in Greater Vernon pay more in base fees than they do for the actual metered water they use.  Mind boggling, beyond belief you say, check your water bill, then weep.

The people that brought us this are now going to do an in-house review of their past recommendations and everything is going to be hunky-dory.

Yeah, right.  Juliette Cunningham presides over this charade, she chairs the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.  Give her a dingle or an e-mail.

Make your views known and do it now.  By next year, more money will have gone down the Greater Vernon Water Utility drain as they keep plugging away doing the same old, same old.

Councillors Spiers of Vernon and Kiss of Coldstream are trying to rectify this water madness but they need your help.

Two votes are not enough to get real change for real betterment.  Do your part and twist some political arms."
                                       Jim Bodkin

Source:  CCMWP Terry Mooney

and another:

"Greater Vernon Water:

It doesn't take an MBA to see stakeholder advisory committee (SAC) is entering a fixed horse race assuring that only a rehashing of Greater Vernon Water projects will be on the table -- the projects that the public refused to fund during the referendum.

The public is outraged area water rates are almost three times the rate of Kelowna users.

Under the bureaucrat-penned terms of reference SAC will review GVW's hastily-scribed list of assumptions.

This means the public at large will not be allowed to submit letters to the SAC group.

How's that for betraying the public which was instrumental in demanding change.

The grassroots group Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, has touched the public pulse with its clearly-understood May presentation at the Schubert Centre.

The public wants Okanagan Lake as a water source, as Kelowna has, with no demand by IHA for filtration, because Okanagan Lake is a deep repository of glacial gravels.

In all of these years GVW bureaucrats haven't got around to protecting the Duteau slough (an apt public description), complaining about vandalism and mud-boggers.

Why hasn't IHA protected the Duteau source?  Water reservoirs on the Lower Mainland are closed to the public and mostly fenced. 

We are misguided if we believe politicians are in charge."
                                           Barb Mitchell

"Angry because Tower Ranch in Kelowna--at more than 200 acres--pays only slightly more than double what Highlands Golf--at 15 acres here--pays annually," says Kia.

"And angry because the OUC community garden--at less than 2 (yes, two) acres--used almost twice as much water as Highlands Golf," adds Kia.

People are watching to see how the leadership thingy goes...

Positive Signs, but Democracy Remains Handcuffed

No, the heading doesn't denote negativity.
It's just the reality of dealing with a largely unsupervised--and uncontrollable--regional district.

More on that later.

This blog will however omit the Morning Star story today entitled "Water Plans Put to Public" because the entire story is just that...a story about how the politicians are putting the public in charge.
Which is absolute nonsense. 
Because the general public is only slightly less informed than GVAC committee members, largely due to the regional district bureaucracy.

That must change.

The positive signs first:


Yesterday's GVAC meeting for the area's Master Water Plan saw some phenomenal results:

As promised by Councillor and GVAC Chair Cunningham at the Schubert Centre public information meeting, a review of the Master Water Plan has been initiated (this--despite RDNO boss Sewell opening with a Powerpoint Presentation that explained the Master Water Plan and the water utility's--and regional district's--interaction with it.)

Ordinarily--at the regional district's GVAC meetings--that would've been the sum and substance of any review..."take it or leave it" has always been the water engineers' choke-hold on advisory committee members.  Not unlike the regional district saying to them:  "you can't come up with anything 'smarter', so just follow us on the path we're leading you down."  

But not on Thursday!

Hopefully buoyed by voter pressure during the Schubert Centre presentation by Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan--or simply that elected officials finally remember who they're working for--bureaucrats got told by their bosses...yes, their bosses--GVAC, what would occur next.

Grab a coffee and enjoy:

Politicians, one by one, took charge of the meeting (as they should always have, but haven't in ages), and mapped out a series of questions to frame the Master Water Plan review.  Each question was electronically posted to the overhead screen so that everyone could read and peruse goals and implications...and (zut alors!) politicians actually voted on each question after discussing it.

Democracy began to awake from its long sleep.

Here they are:  

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 (bullshit!) 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.  (Politicians and staff?  Aren't you forgetting the public?  As long as his idea has no semblance of Coldstream's Agricultural Advisory Committee, which was a sham whose meeting principals were led--by the nose--by a councillor--after they were told what terms of reference were!).  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.  (Alternately then, it would follow that if a user needs unchlorinated non-potable water that isn't available, the user pays for unchlorinated non-potable water!  An excellent idea!)  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.  (But no longer controlled by bureaucrats, hopefully!)  Adopted

14.  Mayor Garlick proposed that staff investigate hiring a communications specialist (dumb idea!  a $100K addition to the bureaucracy...simply tell the truth each week in one or two paragraphs in the newspaper...nobody needs to read something from a spin doctor who is on the RDNO payroll).  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

But!!!!!!

Glaring with its omission was the public's--and CCMWP's--demand that an independent technical authority be engaged to review the MWP.  And nobody meant that group should comprise folks from all walks of public life...retired people, homemakers, people with lots of time on their hands, etc., with no disrespect intended!   The group needs technical people from all walks of life...people trained through industry professions or university.  Please don't suggest prospective members come from named political parties who are seeking to get their name in print, nor bureaucratically-dependent (and left-leaning) affiliations such as the Okanagan Basin Water Board.  

The new committee needs people who can read through the smoke 'n mirrors of what the bureaucracy has always produced.  And people who can read and understand technical memoranda.

Now...why does democracy remain handcuffed after all this good news at GVAC?

It's simple really.

But it takes another Morning Star story (today) to realize what the problem is.

Apparently, Vernon city hall and resident "interactions" need an avenue to get their ideas exchanged.  It was presented by Councillor Anderson that Town Hall meetings be considered.

There's the problem!!!!

The format of current meetings...yup, that's the curse that prevents public dialogue with their elected officials.

Think of it this way:  20 or 30 years ago (yes, I'm of an age that I easy recall it), a member of the public could go to a council meeting and speak up on any topic that he wanted to present.  Officials and bureaucrats would reply...presto, comments to and fro in one meeting.

That doesn't happen anymore at council...and certainly not at regional district GVAC meetings.

The public is not allowed to speak!!!!!

That's not a democracy...that's a way to have meetings end on time.

Yup.  

Consider this.

You are a resident with an opinion on a current community topic.

You attend council--or a GVAC meeting--and hear politicians and bureaucrats ask--and answer--a question or two related to your topic.  But they don't know the mitigating circumstances that only you can provide.  Or they're wrong...flat wrong...in their perception. 

But you're not allowed to speak.  As an attendee, are you really going to leave the meeting, pen a letter to the bureaucracy, asking to be a Delegation at the next meeting (which--in GVAC's case--is a month away!)....no of course you're not.  You're disgusted at being unable to shed new light on a topic they discussed...all without your valuable input.

So a Town Hall meeting is the answer to that?

No.

The current format of meetings deters and stifles the public input process.

Council meetings must open up the floor--and not just for the first 10 minutes as a "Delegation"--so that someone can offer an opinion for politicians and bureaucrats to discuss.  Yes, a bureaucratic moderator would have control so that a person isn't allowed to ramble on and on, or be disrespectful.  But provide information?  Yes indeed.  That's democracy, speaking to his elected representative.

Who the hell wants to go to yet another meeting?

Sounds like the Ombudsman should be contacted to force the structure of meetings (under the Local Government Act?) to once again allow the public to speak to their representatives at the only meeting where they all assemble!

Town Hall meetings are not necessary.

Ever.

"Demand change, and reap its benefits," suggests Kia.

The Talk of the Town

Yup...water.
Everybody's talking about it, whether in restaurants or clubhouses, on buses and on park benches.
Seniors, young families, new arrivals--and some who are departing for this very reason--all have huge concerns about burgeoning water rates under Greater Vernon Water's "leadership".

Or more accurately, the bureaucratic influence on brow-beaten Greater Vernon Advisory Committee members.

Interestingly, the water topic has the least amount of exposure in The Morning Star's Letters section, but one of three known letters did appear in today's edition.  Hallelujah!

"Water Woes, by Janet Green

There is little doubt that the current cost for water in Greater Vernon is unsustainable.

We are facing water bills that are three times higher than Kelowna and twice as high as Penticton.  It doesn't end there.

We are yet to be saddled with another two per cent increase for 2015.  The finger-pointing starts.  Where did we go wrong?

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee reiterates the information received from the staff.  "The cost of water for Greater Vernon is the result of demands from Interior Health Authority".

Let's be very clear, IHA is not the case of the excessive water costs.

If IHA was responsible for the current escalating costs, then Kelowna and Penticton would also be facing the same cost escalation as Greater Vernon, since they also receive their licenses from IHA.

Instead, those communities have water rates which are substantially lower than those in Greater Vernon.

Let's place the problem where it really should rest.

Somewhere in 2002, GVAC selected Duteau Creek for 20 per cent of our domestic water supply.

The decision was based on a consultant's report which we now know to be missing some critical information.  

The reality is that we chose a less than optimal source of water and, the treatment required to meet the standards was complex and costly.

Yes, IHA was vigilant about ensuring the water supply met the standards.  The result is the cost escalation that we are subject to today.  This letter is not about placing blame or pointing fingers.

This is our plea to our elected officials, especially those with GVAC, to address this problem for the residents of the community.

Let's take another look at the master water plan before dumping any more money into Duteau Creek.

The Citizens for Change(sic) to the Master Water Plan have presented well thought out alternatives and I ask for the support of GVAC to take a fresh look."

Janet Green                                                        

Or at least, it shouldn't

"Brow-beaten elected officials don't seem to realize they've been had," offers Kia.

Until they're smart enough to out-smart the bureaucratic smoke 'n mirrors, can change really occur?

We've quit wasting water.

Now the Advisory Committee should quit "saving face".

Doublespeak

Today's Morning Star story by Rolke "Waiting game upsets board" is just so much fluff from the RDNO.

They continue looking for an easy way out (to continue with the Master Water Plan) by meeting with the Interior Health Authority despite IHA having stated they were not going to force filtration; that they simply wanted to see progress on meeting drinking water standards...eventually.

Kudos to Vernon councillor--and RDNO director--Catherine Lord who "wants a focus on accessing water licenses from the government or possibly transferring licenses to other water sources such as Okanagan Lake."

Chief RDNO bureaucrat Sewell says "We're working through all of the questions of what we want to achieve."

Huh?
How about focusing on what the public wants to achieve?

He attempted to add detail:  "Our objective is a plan that is not only endorsed by the board and IHA but has support from the public and we have political support."

There ya go...with the failed $70 million borrowing referendum, obviously there's no public support.

Of political support--if one were a betting person--one could avow that the gap is narrowing between Macnabb's "proceed at full speed" supporters and the politicians at Coldstream and Vernon who've had second thoughts since receiving the Powerpoint presentation from the grassroots group "Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan."

No mention by Sewell of the planned May "workshop", which had been promised to the Citizens group.
That doesn't bode well.

Maybe the push by the board for answers will nix the workshop entirely.
That would be a serious mistake by RDNO.
Very serious.

Finally making sense, Sewell added "We will go through what we did and the options we investigated and the options we didn't investigate," he said.

"As long as the options they didn't investigate cover more than three minutes," says Kia suspiciously.

Bureaucratic--or political--language.

Smoke 'n mirrors.

The lost art of Plainspeak is likely on a museum shelf.

Councillor Kiss' Stance Corroborated by Five Mayoralty Candidates

Frankly, it's high time that Gyula Kiss' long-held opinion on the amended Master Water Plan received stronger support than that received from his own mayor--Jim Garlick of the District of Coldstream, who is also a Greater Vernon Advisory Committee member.

Councillor Kiss has been stalwart in his condemnation of Greater Vernon Water's plans for a $70 million referendum this November.  His educated and reasoned opinions were this week corroborated--indeed vindicated--by all five candidates vying to be Mayor of Vernon.
All five will vote "No" in the referendum.

This blog has featured Gyula Kiss' stance on the topic:   June 28th story here and April 9th story here and February 7th story here and June 27th story here and October 9th story here and March 8th story here.  And more.

The five candidates in Vernon have obviously listened to neighbours and residents.

Acclaimed District of Coldstream mayor, Jim Garlick will again likely not support Councillor Kiss' relentless pursuit of a peer review for the plan...he certainly didn't push very hard when he had the opportunity.
Actually, opportunities.
Also silent on the topic are the District of Coldstream's candidates for councillor positions.

"The referendum will receive assent from a few engineers at Greater Vernon Water," forecasts Kia.

What really ticks people off is the continual fear-mongering by engineers at GVW that "Interior Health could order the work" (if the referendum fails).

After almost a year of silence, an Interior Health official last week stated that wasn't necessarily going to occur.

 

It's refreshing indeed to hear candidates for political office share residents' opinions--versus that of the majority of elected officials (except Councillor Kiss) on this topic.

 
At least for now...until bureaucrats begin chipping away at successful candidates.

Right on, Maria!

If bureaucrats wag the tails of political dogs, what's amiss or missing when a politician or two cry foul?
When a politician or two go against the wishes of other politicians who approved the earlier plan?

You'd think bureaucrats would go out of their way to convince any dissenters that the status quo was indeed correct to have approved the earlier plan.

"...this plan is flawed and should be challenged" 

     Maria Besso, Coldstream councillor

 

What--or who--gives bureaucrats the audacity to refuse (imagine that!) the request of one or two elected officials who demand more information of the area's Master Water Plan?  When bureaucrats refuse to revisit a plan with a peer review...indeed even to attend a meeting for a Question and Answer session at an adjacent community's council meeting? 

Consultants, that's what.
And, likely, fear.
Fear that bureaucrats themselves, and other politicians on the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee--were incorrect in approving original consultants' plans in the first place.

Bureaucrats can't lose their jobs at the polls.
Bureaucrats will continue hiring consultants...perhaps even--as is suspected in this case--consultants that agree with their original position.

So, for any politician to--at the eleventh hour--question an approved multi-million dollar plan might be a sign of political suicide.
Or that the cream of the political crop has indeed risen to the top, given further study of the data that formulated the Master Water Plan.

Admittedly the above is a hell of a long intro...to the following Letter to the Editor by Coldstream Councillor Maria Besso (in support of Coldstream Councillor's Gyula Kiss' position).

First, Maria's questions to the technical experts at the Regional District of North Okanagan:

1.  Given that the water from Duteau Creek is much more expensive to treat than the Kal Lake water (about four times as expensive in the winter), and given that most of the water from the Duteau source is needed and used for agricultural irrigation, why does phase 1 of the new 2012 master water plan call for the planning and building of a huge capacity filtration plant at Duteau prior to doing filtration at Kalamalka Lake, when Kal Lake supplies 80 per cent of the domestic water supply for Greater Vernon?

2.  Could you please explain, and quantify the magnitude of the direct effect on residential, industrial, institutional, commercial and agricultural water rates if the relative distribution of expenses between the types of customers remains the same as it is now, and we incur the costs projected in the master water plan that has been approved by the (other) politicians?  

3.  Could you please clearly review, for the public, the timeline and expenditures that have been proposed in phase one of the 2012 MWP, for which they are being asked to endorse the borrowing referendum of $70 million dollars?


Now, Maria Besso's preamble to her three questions:

"I am writing in response to your article 'no peer review for water plan' in The Morning Star.  In my opinion, this is a very bad decision taken by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

I understand that the politicians feel powerless to challenge a plan that has been put forward by technical experts.  But in my opinion, this plan is flawed and should be challenged.

Most people just want to know if there is going to be fresh, clean, safe drinking water when they turn on the tap, and how much will they pay for it.

As one reporter put it to me, "Just cut to the chase, how much is the new water rate?"

Well, after having watched the process for five years, and water rates climb every year, while domestic consumption goes down, and the water utility is left with a shortfall in revenue, I have started to think that this is the definition of insanity.  We do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

To have some influence on the cost of water, we have to start paying attention to what is in the plan.

If we proceed with the master water plan option that has been approved by GVAC, then we will need to borrow $70 million to pay for the projects in phase one of the plan.

In phase one, we will immediately start with plans to build a huge capacity (110 megalitres per day) filtration plant at Duteau Creek.  It will cost $26.5 million to build this filtration plant.

The Duteau plant treats water from the Aberdeen Plateau lakes.  These lakes draw from an abundant supply of water from a neighbouring watershed.

The quality of this water is yellow and full of organics.  Many will remember the yellow VID water we had prior to October 2010 when the Duteau plant first opened. 

We have come a long way since then, but it comes at a cost.

"In summer...64 Olympic-size pools per day.

In winter...we treat 2.4 Olympic-size pools per day.

The difference ... the irrigation water that we treat!"

Because most of the water that comes from Duteau was used for irrigation, and irrigation uses a lot of water at summer peak, we had to build a huge treatment plant to handle the peak demand, and treat all the water (irrigation and domestic water in the same pipes).

To illustrate the insanity, in the summer of 2011, we treated 160 megalitres of water per day at the Duteau plant (the equivalent of 64 Olympic-size pools per day).  By contrast, in the winter of 2011 when there was no irrigation, we treated six megalitres per day (the equivalent of 2.4 Olympic-size pools).  That means that 96 per cent of water went for irrigation.

"...then filter Kal first." 

Even with some expensive pipe separation, this plan will have us using the majority of the water we filter for irrigation of fields.  This is wrong.

Also by building the filtration plant at Duteau as a first step, we are again building a huge, expensive, over-capacity plant, while Kal Lake water remains the cheaper to clean, more desirable source of domestic drinking water. 

Kal Lake water is cheaper to filger because it's cleaner to begin with, so if that continues to be the IHA (Interior Health) requirement, and we cannot get around it, then filter Kal first.

Some Coldstream politicans have asked for a third-party peer review.

Since this review is not forthcoming, and a borrowing referendum has been approved by GVAC, I feel that the public will want, and need, many questions answered to help make up their minds."

Maria Besso, Coldstream councillor

 

 Note:  The City of Kelowna has applied for Filtration Deferral here. 
 Note:  An interesting view, author Jim Cooperman, re Vernon's possible need for Shuswap water is here:
 Note:  A virtual tour of the Duteau water treatment plant is here.

  
"If this is phase 1, the concept of phase 2 scares the hell out of me," intones Kia.


Whatever happens, a big thanks to Maria Besso and Gyula Kiss, councillors at District of Coldstream, for having the chutzpah to question not only their counterparts, but consultants and bureaucrats (both at RDNO and Interior Health).

Where the hell is Coldstream Mayor, Jim Garlick's push to have this insane plan corrected/revised/stopped????

After all, he's been on GVAC all along.