I very much share Mr. Gous's concern to "just keep it factual".
Let's see how factual Mr. Gous's numbers are:
I challenge ANYONE, including Mr. Gous, to show ANY FACTUAL numbers with respect to agricultural consumption.
Perhaps Mr. Gous did not receive his latest Waterlines bulletin.
Agricultural metering is to be completed by 2010. In the meantime, NO METERS = NO CONSUMPTION NUMBERS, merely wild guesstimates.
Perhaps Mr. Gous is relying on that report from his "consultant", that uses "infill data", as in, data that is totally made up, fabricated i.e. NOT FACTUAL.
Let's review:
- Fee setting rationale: Utility operating costs are paid for by the users - ie. all water fee revenues collected = yearly utility operating expenses. Those who benefit from the operation of the service, pay for it.
- Every Greater Vernon water user pays the same rates for water.
- No Vernon users are subsidizing any others.
- We all agreed to borrow a horrendous amount of money to improve water quality and quantity for ALL users, not just Vernon's.
- We are all in the same boat, water is a limited SHARED resource and it is up to us ALL to manage it for the betterment of ourselves and future generations.
What would be the fee setting rationale under devolution?
Who decides how much the regional supply utility should charge Vernon, or Coldstream, or B&C?
If the City of Vernon does not find the terms of the GVW operating agreement (STILL OPERATING BUT THE AGREEMENT IS UNSIGNED!) agreeable, then open up discussion at the regional table and tell us what your beef is.
Or how about using your lake outfall, then you might not need TOTAL control over distribution and would be able to dispose of your treated wastewater like every other community in the valley.
Why is it that all of these water problems would go away, simply by giving Vernon total control over decision-making?
I have yet to see anyone make a financial case for devolution. According to Mr. Gous's "consultant's" report, Vernon's water costs would rise while rates would go down, which could lead to a shortfall of as much as $2 million in revenue annually according to my calculations using the same data.
A report with made-up data that shows how a fictional utility might be cheaper than a real one is certainly not FACTUAL.
Until the true cost of water is known, it is not only premature but irresponsible to promote any changes to the current structure.
Something smells.
January 26, 2010 11:29 AM
************************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment