Water devolution is a term used by the City of Vernon as a euphemism for breaking a contract duly signed by the City, the District of Coldstream and Electoral Areas “B” and “C” back in 2002. The purpose of this contract, laid down in the Master Water Plan (MWP), was to develop a joint water utility that would provide safe drinking water for all domestic customers and maintain affordable agricultural water for the agriculture industry.
The basic principle of the original plan was to create separate delivery system for the domestic and the agriculture water. Each home within the utility would receive highly treated water for domestic use and untreated water would continue to be delivered through the existing irrigation system. All domestic customers within the utility would pay the same water rate and agriculture users would receive water at rates competitive within the Okanagan Valley.
Unfortunately, the plan was modified in 2004, whereby the extension of domestic water lines only happened in Vernon. The rest of the utility customers would be receiving treated water through the irrigation water delivery system. We voted for this change in a referendum in 2004 (at least about 10% of eligible voters did). This change was necessitated by the fact that the expected government grants did not materialize (how could we even expect it in less then two years?!) and the City was desperate for water as they exceeded their existing licenses.
The major consequences of this decision were as follows:
Higher quality water for city customers;
Lower quality water for the rest of us;
Significantly larger treatment plant at Duteau Creek;
Most of the treated water from DC plant used for agriculture irrigation;
Two different price for same quality water.
When the Mayor of Vernon claims that:
The basic principle of the original plan was to create separate delivery system for the domestic and the agriculture water. Each home within the utility would receive highly treated water for domestic use and untreated water would continue to be delivered through the existing irrigation system. All domestic customers within the utility would pay the same water rate and agriculture users would receive water at rates competitive within the Okanagan Valley.
Unfortunately, the plan was modified in 2004, whereby the extension of domestic water lines only happened in Vernon. The rest of the utility customers would be receiving treated water through the irrigation water delivery system. We voted for this change in a referendum in 2004 (at least about 10% of eligible voters did). This change was necessitated by the fact that the expected government grants did not materialize (how could we even expect it in less then two years?!) and the City was desperate for water as they exceeded their existing licenses.
The major consequences of this decision were as follows:
Higher quality water for city customers;
Lower quality water for the rest of us;
Significantly larger treatment plant at Duteau Creek;
Most of the treated water from DC plant used for agriculture irrigation;
Two different price for same quality water.
When the Mayor of Vernon claims that:
“Since the establishment of the Greater Vernon Water Service, Vernon water users have paid in excess of $3 million each year to subsidize discount water rates for irrigation in Coldstream and Areas “B” and “C”. (Morning Star Ad).
he ignores the facts presented above. He also ignores the fact that Directors at NORD representing the City repeatedly supported increases in water rates since 2002 to this year. Why did they do so if they believed the subsidy claim?
The creators of the 2002 MWP addressed the potential problems of treating agricultural water to domestic requirements:
In fact, Coldstream and Electoral Areas' customers subsidized the city customers as they had not received any benefit from their highly elevated water rates.
The creators of the 2002 MWP addressed the potential problems of treating agricultural water to domestic requirements:
“On an average annual basis, about 80% of the water use in the existing NOWA combined system goes to irrigation. The remainder is for domestic use. The quality of water used for potable purposes must be improved to meet the water quality goals. The question is therefore – is it better to treat all of the water or is it better to separate the irrigation and domestic functions and treat only the domestic supply?
The major factor in this decision is cost. This was investigated using an economic analysis technique known as “life cycle costing”. The results clearly show that water system separation, to create a domestic water system and an irrigation water system, has a clear economic advantage over the long-term. Based on a 50-year lifecycle cost analysis, the cost to implement and operate a separated water system is about $149 million. The cost for a combined water system, over the same period and providing the same domestic water quality, is about $198 million – some $49 million higher!” (MWP page 6).
Despite this warning politicians of the day, including those from Vernon, opted to accept this new plan fully knowing that they would have to subsidize agricultural users.
Weighing the consequences of signing the contract should have been done before the signing it!
Weighing the consequences of signing the contract should have been done before the signing it!
*****************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment