A Couple of Letters

Conservation incentive?
Nope.

Increased water rates--and even fuel prices--are no incentive for wealthy folks to conserve water, or fuel for that matter! 
Simple as that.

Increased prices merely hurt low--and middle--income families/seniors on fixed incomes, despite this letter writer's suggestion:

"Water Rates (letter to Morning Star editor, October 11, 2015):

Regarding Joel van der Molen's letter ("Water rates spark a question", Sept 23), what Mr. van der Molen describes as a graduated fee structure for gas prices is in fact exactly what we need.

In this era of accelerating climate change, the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption is becoming more pressing than ever.

Arguably, the only way to curb our consumption is by raising the price at the pump.

A graduated fee structure is used for water in the Okanagan, and it is working:  people use less water when it costs more.

The system of base fees, tier pricing, and reduced drive days that Mr. van der Molen describes would work admirably in reducing our fuel consumption.

Let me turn your question around:  If we can accept this for water, why wouldn't we accept it for fuel?"

     Ward Strong                          

"What a bunch of nonsense," says Kia, adding "the wealthy--and their housekeepers--don't even recycle, let alone restrict journeys by automobile and plane...increased prices affect them not a bit." 

Mr. Strong needs to give some credit to the low--and middle--income families who do care about climate change as much as the prices!  

"Master Water Plan:

The Morning Star editorial of Sept. 20, Water plan scrutiny needed, says some Greater Vernon Water users may be disappointed and frustrated that Gyula Kiss was not appointed to the RDNO stakeholders advisory committee.

They need not be.  He himself said it was expected, and he's not going away.

I also applied for inclusion to the committee and was rejected.  I can vouch for Gyula's comment that 'dissent is not appreciated within the regional district.'

My expectations were low from the outset.  When I put on their application that I was qualified to professionally evaluate technical memoranda and capable of offering opinion on best practices and alternatives, and to endorse or challenge views of SAC advisors, I knew my chances of being included were small.

When David Sewell, the CAO of RDNO says, 'It's not an attempt to silence critics, it's to engage and walk through in a reasoned manner what we've done, what we haven't done and why the master plan is where it is...,' it sounds like his goal is to indoctrinate rather than solicit advice.

Hopefully the first agenda item of the new SAC will be to discuss and confront some of the list of assumptions developed by RDNO staff.

RDNO politicians have stated the committee meetings will be open to the public.  I'll be there.

Like Gyula, I'm not going away either and will continue to offer my somewhat radical opinions to successful applicant Terry Mooney, of the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, and others."

Dana Mills 

"Being present--but not allowed to speak at SAC or for that matter, GVAC meetings--doesn't allow for a fruitful exchange of ideas either," offers Kia.

                       

 

Because the public's rejection of the $70 million borrowing referendum was too silent. 

van der Molen's Analogy

Joel van der Molen's analogy, comparing GVW's tiered and base fee water charges, is excellent.

"Water rates spark a question:

"Imagine the following.  You show up to a gas station to fill your van with gas, and as you start to fill up you notice that the starting point on the pump is $50.

You quickly stop pumping and ask the attendant why the price is not starting at zero.  He states that this is a base fee, which covers the cost of getting the fuel to your vehicle.

"If you wouldn't accept this for fuel,

why are we accepting it for water? " Joel van der Molen

You are a little upset but decide to fill up anyway, as the price per litre doesn't look that bad.

After 20 litres, however, you notice a sharp increase on the pump.

You stop again and ask why the price has jumped.

The attendant says that you are now in tier two, so the price goes up.

He warns you to try and avoid tiers three and four.

This is to encourage you to use less gas.  Unfortunately since you have a large family, you need the van.

So because of the tier system, although you will use less fuel per person than a single occupancy smart car to move from point A to point B, you will pay on average more per litre.

He also mentions that even though their fuel tanks are at normal operating levels for this time of year, they are only allowing their customers to drive three days per week to reduce fuel consumption.

When you ask why, he says that you never know if there will be a good supply in the future.

As you hop in your van to leave, you hear that annoying commercial again.  "Don't drive, let it sit."

This is the annual campaign telling you that Okanagan motorists are the biggest fuel wasters in the country and should just stop driving.

Following the commercial is a news break with the top story being that the base price for gas is set to surge next year because people aren't using enough gas to cover costs.

Now stop imagining.  If you wouldn't accept this for fuel, why are we accepting it for water?"

              Joel van der Molen                    

"So why do we GVW water customers tolerate it?" asks Kia.

Yup, they do.
Elected reps allow bureaucracy to steamroll them -- and us.

So what's the solution?
Since it's too late to demand IQ tests for candidates, how about refusing to re-elect them?

Skewed Water Numbers?

Joel van der Molen has a point.
And he's tracked his family's usage.

"First of all, our reservoirs are full." 

Joel van der Molen

 

In a letter to the editor, he dismisses the doom and gloom of the Okanagan Basin Water Board's dire warnings regarding residents' water consumption.

Here's Joel's letter, published August 11, 2013, in the Morning Star:

"Recently The Morning Star published a story of a young woman encouraging citizens to stop watering their lawns.

"... Can someone from the Okanagan Basin Water Board explain how you come up with your numbers?"

One edition previous to that there was a letter to the editor expressing the idea of diverting water from the Shuswap.

These are two ideas on both ends of the spectrum in response to the idea that we have no water in the Okanagan.  An idea proudly spread by the Okanagan Basin Water Board, as seen in some of their water wise articles.

I would like to address two main concerns:

First of all our reservoirs are full.

We do have water, and most years our reservoirs overflow for weeks on end as they did this year (notice that we have not seen any graphs in the paper this year?)

Second, according to www.obwb.ca the average Okanagan resident is wasting water by using 675 litres per day per person. If that were true, our five-person household quarterly water bill would be $567.25.

They say that we increase our personal water use in the summer to 1,000 litres per day.  If that were true, I can expect a water bill for $830.50 after the next quarter.

In actual fact my household in the last quarter used 140 litres per day per person.

Can someone from the Okanagan Basin Water Board explain how you come up with your numbers?"
Joel van der Molen

"Easy...their calculator is missing its decimal point," muses Kia.  

The operative words are "...if that were true."
Good letter, Joel!

To view a 33-page report that includes raising the storage height of the Aberdeen reservoir, click here.