Letter to the Morning Star and a response.

In response to Mr Simon’s letter to the Morning Star let me assure him that the plant had no “major equipment malfunction”. There was a problem with the BC Hydro transformer that had been a point of contention by two disagreeing partners: GVWU and BC Hydro for some time. Had it been resolved earlier this problem would not have happened. 

There are all sorts of pumping needed to allow even DC water to be delivered to many of the customers. There was only an electrician needed to attend the MH problem. A stand by generator could have avoided the MH shut down. We have trained staff to do emergency services as part of their jobs. Any expense to rectify small problems like the one  we had on Boxing Day would be infinitesimal to the cost of supplying filtered water to hay fields and other agricultural crops even if we ignore the cost of the construction and operation costs of additional facilities to provide such filtered water. Kalamalka Lake and Okanagan Lake may eventually be invaded by mussels if we are not vigilant. GVWU already has made plans to eliminate the problem by these nasty organisms by including an extra pipe to the Kal intake extension so that chlorine could be injected into the lake at the intake discouraging any mussels from the neighbourhood.

Just to be accurate, the DC plant cost is closer to $30 M. Power is less expensive than the annual treatment costs at DCWTP. Furthermore, even today a lot of power is needed to distribute water to residents of higher elevations like the Predator Golf Course, Silver Star Foothills, the Rise, Turtle Mountain, etc. Contrary to Mr Simon’s statement we do have significant water rights on Okanagan Lake if we consider changing the point of diversion of our licenses from BX Creek, Deer/Coldstream Creek and Kalamalka Lake to Okanagan Lake. That would be a net zero transfer and with justification should be no difficulty of achieving it.

As far as the local group is concerned: they should be commended for getting involved in the future of their water supply just as you should be commended for voicing your opinion. The issues are not as simple as they appear to the casual observer. Some of us noted that during the election campaign many of the political aspirants who originally supported the Master Water Plan changed their position on their support of the referendum. They assured the electorate that they would vote against the referendum question. Obviously, even those intimately involved in the process were not totally sure that it was the right direction. That’s why they appointed the Stakeholders’ Advisory Committee (SAC). Unfortunately, only staff and Consultants are permitted to provide information to this Committee. Information they are given might be considered biased. No "opinion biased in the opposing side" (this writer) nor an independent expert were allowed to review the current plan and comment on it. Hopefully, despite these less than fair decisions by the majority of GVAC the SAC will make the right decision in the end.

************************************************************************************************************