The following is my brief summary of the MWP review process over the past
15 months:
In the fall of 2014, a referendum was held to approve funding for the GVW's
2012 MWP. That referendum proposal was soundly defeated.
GVW management and elected municipal officials claimed the public didn't
understand, and later admitted enough may not have done to inform the
public.
In response to continued pressure to review and revise the MWP, a SAC was
formed.
SAC members were selected based on their lack of involvement in developing
the MWP.
All information and facts provided to assist the SAC in their review came
from GVW staff and the consultant who prepared the MWP; no independent experts
were allowed to contribute.
SAC was told they could only review and make recommendations on non-cost
topics, even though the SAC was formed in response to a failed funding
referendum.
To further ensure the desired SAC response, GVW and the elected officials
leading the SAC focused the SAC members on choosing wording for non-cost
evaluation criteria; lest SAC try to get into the substance of the MWP - like
maintenance & construction, operation, infrastructure, water rates, domestic
vs agricultural use, water supply, water treatment, etc., etc.
While the SAC review was underway, GVW carried on with projects and
expenditures consistent with the MWP, as if the referendum had never occurred
and there was no review.
The exercise is now almost over and it is seems certain that GVW, and the
associated elected officials will proclaim "An extensive review of the 2012 MWP
by a large and diverse SAC has found no need for substantive change".
The foregoing is a sad statement about abilities and responsiveness of our
local government bureaucracy where elected officials and staff are supposed to
act in the best interest of the rate paying customers and voting public.
*********************************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment