Once again I wish to clarify my position on the Master Water Plan. My major objection is that the cost of the plan is huge and the result is an expensive irrigation system that will drain customers pockets for decades to come. It does not solve the problem we intended to solve by initiating the MWP, namely the separation of the two systems.
The Consultants in 2002 declared that the best solution to our water problem is a completely separated domestic and irrigation system. The main failure of their recommendation was that they did not thoroughly investigate all of the potential water sources (Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes). In addition, they proposed to build a new water treatment plant by the Regional District instead of upgrading the existing one on Mission Hill. This made the cost of the plan appear much larger than what it should have been. The updated MHTP would be able to handle all the domestic water for the foreseeable future with a cost reduction of their original plan of about $20 million.
The reason given for not doing a more in-depth investigation of Okanagan and Kalamalka Lakes was that there was not enough license capacity on those two lakes. This was not quite true.
What was ignored is the fact that the current Water Act permits transferring the Point of Diversion (POD) of water licenses on a contiguous waterway from upstream to downstream, provided there is no negative environmental effect resulting from such transfer. In our case water licenses on Deer Creek and Coldstream Creek could have been (and still could be) diverted to Kalamalka Lake, providing sufficient volumes of domestic water for at least 35 years hence. At the same time fish habitat on Coldstream Creek and Long Lake Creek (outlet of Kalamalka Lake) would be enhanced.
By extending the domestic water supply delivery system to customers hitherto supplied by Duteau Creek we would have avoided building a treatment plant at Duteau Creek and could have turned the whole irrigation system back to the agriculture customers. No treatment plant ($29 million), no agricultural separation ($10-15 million) and significantly less unnecessary studies of the Aberdeen watershed. More importantly we would have completed the plan before now at lower costs and with complete separation.
Following are three statements given by the current Consultants regarding water quality of Duteau Creek, Okanagan Lake and Kalamalka Lake (Technical Memorandum #2):
The Consultants in 2002 declared that the best solution to our water problem is a completely separated domestic and irrigation system. The main failure of their recommendation was that they did not thoroughly investigate all of the potential water sources (Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes). In addition, they proposed to build a new water treatment plant by the Regional District instead of upgrading the existing one on Mission Hill. This made the cost of the plan appear much larger than what it should have been. The updated MHTP would be able to handle all the domestic water for the foreseeable future with a cost reduction of their original plan of about $20 million.
The reason given for not doing a more in-depth investigation of Okanagan and Kalamalka Lakes was that there was not enough license capacity on those two lakes. This was not quite true.
What was ignored is the fact that the current Water Act permits transferring the Point of Diversion (POD) of water licenses on a contiguous waterway from upstream to downstream, provided there is no negative environmental effect resulting from such transfer. In our case water licenses on Deer Creek and Coldstream Creek could have been (and still could be) diverted to Kalamalka Lake, providing sufficient volumes of domestic water for at least 35 years hence. At the same time fish habitat on Coldstream Creek and Long Lake Creek (outlet of Kalamalka Lake) would be enhanced.
By extending the domestic water supply delivery system to customers hitherto supplied by Duteau Creek we would have avoided building a treatment plant at Duteau Creek and could have turned the whole irrigation system back to the agriculture customers. No treatment plant ($29 million), no agricultural separation ($10-15 million) and significantly less unnecessary studies of the Aberdeen watershed. More importantly we would have completed the plan before now at lower costs and with complete separation.
Following are three statements given by the current Consultants regarding water quality of Duteau Creek, Okanagan Lake and Kalamalka Lake (Technical Memorandum #2):
“The hydrologic regime of the Duteau Creek watershed is dominated by snowmelt and therefore, snow pack depth and timing of snowmelt dictate the supply status of upland reservoirs. Snow pack depth reaches the maximum in late March, early April, while snowmelt starts to fill the reservoirs after this date. Historical data indicates that by the middle of May, the seasonal snow pack is generally gone. This date represents the tail end of the snowmelt season. In normal years; the reservoirs would be nearing capacity by June. After this time, water supply is dependent on precipitation inputs. The summer period also corresponds to the period of peak irrigation demand, with maximum consumption between mid-July and mid-August. In the summer, because stored water is being consumed at a rate that far exceeds inflow, reservoir levels start dropping.”
"Okanagan Lake abuts into the west end of the City of Vernon and is likely the largest and most reliable future source of water to meet the long term growth of the Greater Vernon area. It is the primary water source for the cities of Kelowna and Penticton, as well as a number of smaller centres."
"Kalamalka/Wood Lake, due to its large storage capacity and long turnover rate is much less susceptible to the annual variations in snow pack depth. Besides Upper Vernon Creek, Oyama Creek, and Coldstream Creek, abundant groundwater springs provide source inflows to Kalamalka / Wood Lake."
Having made these revealing statements their preference was still the less secure and more expensive water supply option. Why?
When two reports are produced by two teams of the same consulting firms with two totally opposing solutions one must assume that a thorough investigation would be warranted. It did not happen.
When two reports are produced by two teams of the same consulting firms with two totally opposing solutions one must assume that a thorough investigation would be warranted. It did not happen.
There were no detailed plans prepared: that is what we are doing now. However, now we are burdened with the existing expenditures of millions of dollars.
How do we ensure that these expenditures are justified in the new plans? Would we proceed in this direction have we not invested $68 millions of ratepayers money? Unlikely. The new plan only needs 110 ML/d treated water from the existing plant. The capacity of the existing plant is 162 ML/d. That's an oversize of 47%. Would a 110 ML/d plant cost less than $29 million? I would assume the answer is yes.
Could we still return to the total separation? I believe we could and in the future I will provide some possible solutions. It would involve discontinuing the use of the DCWTP and deferring the filtration plant with the approval of Interior Health. The results would reduce the immediate costs. Irrigation water would return to the agricultural customers for their own use. In my opinion, it is better to admit a mistake and correct it the right way than to continue with the faulty solutions burdening current and future generations.
***************************************************************************************
1 comment:
Ultimately transferring all the water licences to Okanagan lake and having ONE plant do everything would have been the best but too late for that I guess now. I think there's even water licence on BX Creek that could be used for that, could be wrong on that though
Post a Comment