-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is surprising that my comments “Who is
directing it (the MWP)? It looks like staff is directing it.” created so much
controversy. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
Staff was hired to direct the MWP. That's what
they are getting paid for. Staff write terms of references to hire consultants,
staff gather information and provide it to politicians, they are the ones who
make recommendations etc. Consultants are the extension of staff and staff is
responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the consultants information.
Politicians have to make decisions based on the information and recommendations
staff provide to them
However, since politicians have to make
decisions based on that information it must be complete, accurate, factual, up
to date, non-selective and unbiased. Withholding pertinent information, whether
it is due to lack of knowledge or otherwise, is not tolerable. This is where we
have our differences.
In the 2002 MWP Okanagan Lake was omitted as a
water supply source. Inquiring minds were told that the reason for this omission
was due to lack of water licenses on Okanagan Lake. This was true as far as it
went. The fact that GVW had ample water licenses on tributaries to Okanagan Lake
and that the Water Act had provisions that would allow transfer of Point of
Diversion (POD) of existing water licenses was not provided by neither the
consultants nor staff. Had this information been provided and acted upon the
direction and cost of the MWP could have been a lot different.
Similarly, staff reported that there was
insufficient water license capacity in Kalamalka Lake. The possible transfer of
POD from Deer Creek/Coldstream Creek was again not revealed to the politicians.
Knowledge of that possibility could have changed decisions.
In fact, the possibility of transferring POD
from Duteau Creek to Kalamalka Lake was never mentioned. The Water act allows
minor transfers (up to 10 cubic meters per second) between watersheds.
If any of those facts were considered by staff
and the political reps Duteau Creek would never have needed altering. It could have
been reassigned to raw agriculture water only as it used to be prior to 1970.
IHA was blamed for the huge expenditure in a
very short time. IHA clarified their
position recently (the presentation was released from in-camera to general
information). Their position was that GVWU develop a plan with timelines for
their approval. How we do it is our choice. If they do not like it they will
make suggestions. We opted
for the most expensive, most complicated plan, leaving us with no room to negotiate.
There are many other examples I could list. I am
not blaming the current staff for all of the problems. However, we must work
together to see how we can remedy the existing
situation. We are now aware of previous information
deficiencies, provided in the preparation of the MWP. Excessive water rates are
the issue. The politicians need to step into their primary role, which is to
ensure that the tax payers are represented first and foremost, while balancing
their secondary role which is to maintain a good working relationship with staff
at the RDNO. Whatever plan we develop we must
convince the public to approve funding for it.
Most people resent the fact that they pay huge
water bills even with low usage. They also face stringent restrictions on when
and how they can use their water while they watch big guns spray the same
expensive water on hay fields and other agricultural crops at any time, any day and pay pittance for it. That resentment is not going
to improve with adding future expensive treatment to the mixed
domestic/agriculture water. This situation would remain a constant point of
discontent for the domestic customers as their rates keep climbing.
************************************************************************************
2 comments:
One has to ask why there is no political will to revisit the plan in light of the ridiculous rates we must pay to support this Duteau based plan ( before filtration costs), in comparison to our neighbours (Kelowna, Penticton). Either we are lousy managers of the utility, or we chose the wrong source (or perhaps both). I can understand the resistance on staff's part to support another look at all the options as it makes them look incompetent, but I can't understand the political resistance to trying to get me, the taxpayer, the best water at the best rates. Another committee advised by the same staff is not the way to get to the right solution.
Agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster.
Nothing needs adding to that statement!
Except Einstein's oft-quoted saying: "Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results."
Post a Comment