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.

CCMWP Objective Officially Denied by RDNO

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.

As press officer, I have informed the Media that we would report following the final outcome.  Due to personal reasons, I am unable to continue my involvement with this effort and wish to bring to a close my involvement in this chapter of the water situation.  I believe that the fight should continue and for the immediate future, will watch from the sidelines as it evolves."  T.Mooney


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.

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.

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.

Kevin's Correct!

As reported today in Bob Spiers' blog and the Morning Star, Lumby Mayor Kevin Acton is not impressed with the Okanagan Basin Water Board which is urging residents to conserve water now in case of drought this summer.

"There isn’t a shortage of water now,” he said, adding that there isn’t a need to cut back on water use. “I am disappointed to hear their advertisements when there isn’t a drought right now.” 

Right on, Kevin!
Exactly!

The rest of Richard Rolke's story is:

Lumby officials fear the community could be washed out again. The village has sent a letter to the Regional District of North Okanagan protesting the release of water from Aberdeen Plateau reservoirs that can lead to flooding in the downtown core.

“The regional district has the ability to help mitigate the flooding situation,” said Mayor Kevin Acton. “They need to follow best practises so they don’t cause flooding.”   In 2013, significant flooding swamped businesses and homes right in the middle of Lumby.   And sandbags have been put in place this year in case the creeks overflow their banks.

“The high-altitude melt comes in mid-June and if there is rain, it could be a perfect storm,” said Acton.

“We’d like the regional district to make an educated guess on how to get the reservoirs to the top without them spilling over and causing.”

RDNO has previously stated it can’t let water out of the reservoirs early, because, depending on weather conditions in the early spring, that water may be needed for domestic supply in the summer. It also states that snowmelt spilling over reservoirs and into creeks is a natural process.  

Beyond RDNO, Acton is not impressed with the Okanagan Basin Water Board which is urging residents to conserve water now in case of drought this summer. “There isn’t a shortage of water now,” he said, adding that there isn’t a need to cut back on water use. “I am disappointed to hear their advertisements when there isn’t a drought right now.”

"The big problem is asking the regional district to make an 'educated guess'," says Kia, adding "we haven't seen that occurring historically."

And a high-altitude melt in mid-June?
It's probably half gone already.

Don't forget, folks:

  The more water you conserve, the more you pay

 for each cubic metre of it.

Also don't forget what the consultant said during one of the SAC meetings:

  "You are blessed with loads of water..." 

It's just a matter of bureaucrats and biased-to-the-nines elected officials letting us use it!

When is that next election????