Greater Vernon Water Utility Boil Water Advisory Rescinded!!

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

Greater Vernon Water - Water Storage Update

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

Pressure grows for water plan

“The (failed water plan) referendum is coming up on three years and we’re marginally coming along on how to finance it,” said Doug Dirk, Greater Vernon Advisory Committee director.

 Director Dirk is too kind!

Actually, the Master Water Plan has been going on since 2001, for over 15 years. It was supposed to be completed by 2007 (see MWP 2002 page 11-1). Then politics came in. Over $70 million later, amazingly,  we are irrigating agricultural crops with treated water, a huge waste of ratepayers money. Treatment cost runs about $1.5 million a year. Unfortunately, this water has chlorination only for disinfection while it serves about 20% of the domestic customers. It needs more treatment.

Now GVWU is planning to spend additional $8+ million so they can irrigate crops with even more expensive ultraviolet treated water. That is an extra treatment cost on top of the $1.5 million for a total of likely over $2 million annually. As the Chair person remarked, with UV we hope to be able to defer (but not eliminate) filtration for a bit longer. If filtration also has to be installed that will make the $8 million UV treatment redundant. It will also make the treatment costs significantly higher.

Kelowna and the South East Irrigation District (SEKID) were facing the same problem as Greater Vernon and VID did. Kelowna chose to take the gradual improvement plan by improving the water quality for the greater population of Kelowna first by installing UV treatment on the Okanagan Lake water supply. They have deferred filtration as the lake water quality was good without filtration.

When the problem with SEKID finally came to a crunch Kelowna went to the Government with the problem. They succeeded in obtaining a $44 million grant that will be used for total separation of the irrigation and the domestic water supply.

Greater Vernon Utility officials believed that government grants could only be used for treatment plant construction. Kelowna proved it not to be so! GVU wasted our money (and government grants as well) for constructing an ill-advised, money sucking treatment plant at Duteau because "...grants were available for treatment plant construction".

Kelowna is getting to work on a totally separated system that will provide highly treated Okanagan Lake water for both SEKID and Kelowna customers.

There is still time to reverse the current MWP direction. Projected additional cost to complete the MWP as it currently planned is roughly $150 million. About $110 million of that is proposed for Duteau Plant projects. In addition there will still remain the annual treatment cost of about $2 million or more. These moneys would be more than adequate to cover the total separation costs.

The current masters of the MWP have been at it for nearly 17 years with little to show for their efforts. They are now bogged down in protecting the current direction. Since the construction of the Duteau Creek WTP there was a desperate effort to maintain the plant in the system even if it costs more to the taxpayers. They would not admit that there were mistakes made. New information has not been incorporated into the plans. For instance, the initial projections for water demand were hugely overestimated. We are still using those estimates in our plans to create larger than necessary infrastructure at higher than necessary costs. 

It is obvious that a second opinion is needed to evaluate the MWP. When a potential expenditure for the plan is  over $215 million we should not rely on the opinion of a single group that ruled for over 15 years with questionable success. We must insist on getting a second opinion.

Staff and politicians try to eliminate further input from the ratepayers by using inflated water rates to collect funding for the financing of the water plan. This way they would not have to go for another referendum. It's kind of an "end run" to avoid the repeat of the 2014 defeat of the referendum.

However, this action is totally inappropriate as the current ratepayers will not get the benefit of what they are paying for. The benefits will only come after the moneys are collected and the projects are completed. For many that might be too late! Talk to your elected politicians and express your opinion to them!

My earlier activities: In 1991 I wrote a report with supportive evidence that total separation of the domestic and agriculture systems is the most cost effective option to follow.  MWP 2002 affirmed the same principle.

In 2006 I appeared in front of the RDNO Board of Directors requesting a Judicial Review (click for news report) of the direction of the MWP. It was refused. Instead, staff wrote a report stating that the Plan, which is incomplete even today,  was heading in the right direction. It seems that was not true.

This might be my last effort to appeal to my colleagues and to the Greater Vernon Water customers to demand an independent review of the plans. I have no more voice on GVAC. Neither staff nor politicians wish to hear opposing opinion.

Perhaps they will have to start listening to you, the customers! So voice your opinion or pay the price!

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

GVW - Water Supply Update

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

Response to Anonymous comments on: Some real data on Greater Vernon water use

Anonymous said...

   “Let's not assume anything!

    Actual residential water usage in Greater Vernon is closer to 222 litres per person per day, not 675.
 http://obwb.ca/obwrid/docs/337_2009_Residential%20ICI%20actual%20use%20(Miles).pdf    As Coldstreamer has calculated, we are already "doing the right thing" and conserving water (... probably because our rates are so high!).

    Same story with BC Hydro - customers do the right thing and conserve energy, and then the utility hikes the rates. We can't win.”

The above comment was in response to my blog post entitled: 

Some real data on Greater Vernon water use.The quoted reference by Anonymous was published by Jennifer Miles in 2009. She is currently employed by the North Okanagan Regional District.  The report shows even lower per capita water use than was calculated by me. That calculation was based on water use data provided by Greater Vernon Water in their Annual Reports between 2011-2015 (reported average annual per capita consumption at 307 liters per day per capita).

There are some questions that must be asked:

The 2012 Master Water Plan was designed for a domestic capacity of 9,670 ML in 2011, increasing in steps to 13,360 ML in 2052. At the estimated consumption of 222 l/d/p the 9,670 ML would have supported a population of 119,339. Why would the planners design such a huge oversized infrastructure for a population of ~55,000? They must have been aware of the report by Jennifer Miles.
 
The 2052 consumption estimate of 13,360 ML would provide domestic water for a population of 164,877 using the 222  per capita estimates. Would we anticipate that kind of growth in 40 years?
 

Even at the per capita consumption of 307 l/d/p, calculated by me based on actual data, the projected 2011 consumption of 9,670 ML would have supplied  over 86,000 people. That’s an oversize of 57%.

 One set of data that made a huge influence on the per capita consumption was the high ICI water consumption. Without the ICI consumption the current per capita consumption could be in the low to middle 200's.

Obviously, if the 222 l/d/p consumption figure was used to estimate future water demands the plant would have been undersized. However, the currently available empirical evidence should be considered prior to establishing future water demand figures. Should we not incorporate actual data collected over 5 (or now 6 years)?

As for “Let's not assume anything!”: scientific reports must always state the assumptions the author of the report made in collecting the data for the study and for the conclusions.

Civil Servants must understand: services required by their employers, the public, must be provided cost effectively and to the demand the public requires within the available resources. If we require the public to finance an infrastructure that exceeds their needs and/or the capacity of the resource, then the customers pay more than they need to pay.

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

INFORMATION NOTICE TO GREATER VERNON WATER CUSTOMERS

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

Kelowna recives $44 million for domestic water separation

March 17, 2017

A successful funding application for Phase 1 of the 2017 Kelowna Integrated Water Supply Plan means clean safe drinking water is one step closer for citizens of South East Kelowna and a plentiful supply of agricultural irrigation water is coming to the South Mission.

The federal and provincial governments approved the City of Kelowna funding application of $43.9 million to bring treated lake water to South East Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) ratepayers for domestic use, and to resolve irrigation supply problems for the South Okanagan Mission Irrigation District (SOMID). The project will also allow another five small private water systems to connect. 

The total project cost is $61.3 million, with a combined local contribution of $17.4 million representing 28 per cent of total project costs.

“Funding of this magnitude is something we rarely see – in fact, this is the largest single grant anyone at the City can remember receiving,” said Kelowna Mayor Colin Basran. “I want to thank the federal and provincial governments for acknowledging this essential need in Kelowna and for committing to help ensure our citizens have safe clean drinking water for a rapidly growing population a resilient and redundant water supply system to meet our agricultural needs in the face of climate change.”

A transition plan, a requirement of the provincial government and the grant application, is underway to map out the process for SEKID and the City of Kelowna to work together on Phase 1 of the 2017 Kelowna Integrated Water Supply Plan.  Pending the timely completion of a successful transition agreement clean drinking water is anticipated to be delivered to the majority of SEKID ratepayers by the end of 2019, or earlier if possible, with a target completion date to all SEKID customers by 2020.  In addition to the significant direct cost savings to ratepayers the project would also be completed 10 years faster than without government funding. The work to service SOMID is also expected to be completed by 2019.

“The plan achieves more than just good water quality – it will also achieve rate equity, a more resilient and robust system and maintains the interest of our agricultural community,” said Project Manager Ron Westlake.

The grant announcement will allow for the initial phase of the long-term integration plan to be implemented and set the groundwork for future integration.  Phase 1 includes the separation of agricultural and domestic systems in SEKID; in the short-term domestic water will be supplied through a new transmission line connecting to the City of Kelowna’s water distribution system from Okanagan Lake.  Agricultural water will continue to be supplied from Hydraulic Creek with emergency connections to the domestic supply in the event of service disruption. Phase 1 will also see a sustainable agricultural water supply delivered to SOMID, along with upgrades to the City of Kelowna’s water utility to supply both SEKID and SOMID and accommodate future growth.

The overall direction for an integrated system is established by the 2017 Kelowna Integrated Water Supply Plan and will inform future phases. The plan was developed using existing plans during a Value Planning exercise held in January, as a provincial requirement to determine the best lowest cost city-wide solution. The study was conducted by an objective engineering firm from the United States, with the participation of local water experts. 

The new plan will achieve:

Clean drinking water for all citizens

Agricultural interests maintained and protected

A resilient and redundant system that will help Kelowna navigate an uncertain future when it comes to climate change and increased regulation

Equitable rates, supply and service – some residents are paying twice as much as others for water that doesn’t meet Canadian guidelines, depending on which irrigation district is supplying the water.

“This plan will eventually ensure all our citizens have clean drinking water at equitable rates, while our domestic and agricultural needs are met with an integrated system that has the flexibility to draw water from a number of options to meet demand,” said Mayor Basran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for GVWU staff's arguments that government grants would not be available for domestic water separation. 

We will be the only community in the valley to spend millions of dollars to treat agricultural water with ultra violet irradiation and eventually filtration only to use 80% of it on agricultural irrigation. Good job, consultants and staff!

SEKID customers, who earlier rejected a borrowing referendum of about $25 million, will now be getting a brand new domestic line attached to the City of Kelowna's domestic water supply from Okanagan Lake courtesy of senior governments grants of $44 million.

To date we spent over $70 million on our soon(?) to be updated Master Water Plan. (Only $35 million was authorized by ratepayers in the 2004 referendum). About 60% of these monies were spent on altering the perfectly functioning irrigation system. The remainder was spent on the domestic water supply improvements from Kal Lake. 

GVWU staff recently released the expected long term budget for the Master Water Plan. 

In addition to the already spent $70+ million we can expect to spend an additional $147 million for a grand total of over $215 million for the plan. And these are the estimates by the same people who estimated the cost of the Duteau Creek Treatment Plant at $16 million (final cost almost$30 million). About $111 million of this money will be spent on the irrigation system (the old VID) for a grand total of about $156 million. The cost of the original VID system was $7.9 million.

There is one more important thing to remember: staff and politicians do not want to fail this time. So instead of going out for another referendum the proposal is to collect money from us in advance through water rates. The annual amount would be about the same as our annual cost of financing would have been for the rejected $70 million (in the range of $4-5 million annually). When sufficient reserves are collected in future years then portions of the plan will be constructed as money allows.

The problem with this approach is that many of us will never see the improvements we are paying for in advance. It's like someone setting aside money for a house so he/she would not have to borrow. In the meantime he/she lives in a rental home while the cost of the dream house keep escalating and part of the mortgage is spent on the rental. Instead, if the plan is the right plan, we should borrow the funds and pay while enjoying the benefits of a new MWP. I would be the first one to vote for a normal, separated domestic/agriculture water system. This plan is not the right plan!

Look for future discussions on this very important issue for our community right here in this blog.

Next: The hidden costs of the current proposed MWP! Who is paying for what and the cost to you!

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

Latest Duteau Creek Reservoir storage!

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

Notice to Greater Vernon Water Customers - RDNO

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

Is there scientific evidence for pending water shortages in Greater Vernon in 2016?

Before we start a major water conservation project we should consider the scientific evidence for the need for it. As I stated earlier there are consequences of extreme water conservation: we pay more for less water as the budgetary obligation must be met.

Of course, if there is a major water shortage we must be prudent with the available water so every customer gets his/her basic needs. For that purpose Greater Vernon Water Utility developed a Drought Management Plan in 2011 with the help of a dedicated group of volunteers. The plan considers available empirical evidence before determines appropriate action. It uses a model such as the one below to decide the need for extreme conservation measures.

The current status of the Duteau Reservoir is demonstrated below:

There is no water shortage indicated  by the graph. In fact, if we observe long term empirical data relating to reservoir levels (below) we can see that in most years when the Duteau reservoir was full at the start of the irrigation season the reservoir was in good shape by the end of the season.

So, we can choose to conserve and get less water for more money, and perhaps run a deficit, or use our water judicially. We have a way oversized water system for which we had (and continue to have) to pay and we are already quite diligent in using water way below predicted volumes (an average of 53% below the predicted demands). Staff is so worried about reduced water consumption that they recommended extremely high base fees for which we get no water at all. This costs us all a lot of money without justification.

I have analyzed the water consumption of Coldstream customers for the first quarter of 2016. The average cost of 1 cubic meter of water was $4.30. Of this sum $3.10 (72%) was due to base fees. I am reasonably sure that if we also included Vernon customers this rate would be lower due to lower Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) rates.

This could be improved significantly if all domestic customers (including customers)  paid the same rates. However, the majority of RDNO Directors oppose the elimination of subsidized rates for ICI customers. They need your opinion on the issue so they could be pressured to represent your interests. If you disagree with ICI subsidies email, phone or write to your political representative and tell them how you feel.

You may decide to conserve water on principle and it is your prerogative. But that conserved water will not stay here: it will continue its travel to the sea and come back next year via air mail!

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

Review Supports Current Water Plan

Posted on 5/5/2016 3:00 PM by Pete McIntyre

 

A review of Greater Vernon's master water plan has reaffirmed the current direction.

An 18 member stakeholders advisory committee (SAC) made up of a cross section of water users, held 11 meetings since last fall, to review technical information and options.

SAC Committee chairperson Jim Garlick says the main conclusion is the current system with two water sources and two treatment facilities, is the best option.

"Rather than going to one source, and saying Kal Lake, Duteau Creek or Okanagan Lake be our sole source alone, and one treatment plant, the idea is to have redundancy, That that is important to the plan."

Coldstream councillor Gyula Kiss -- who supported using Duteau Creek just for farming water -- felt the committee eliminated any chance of opposing views.

"First of all, they wouldn't allow me to get on the committee, and in order to get intelligent questions, one has to have an idea of what's in the plan. Any input from an opposing view was totally eliminated. We had a bunch of people that were only indoctrinated by staff and the consultants," Kiss tells Kiss FM.

Garlick, who is Coldstream's mayor,  says trying to avoid that perception was a major focus.

"Efforts were made to say, 'Here's the information, take it for your own consideration, and come up with your own conclusions,'" says Garlick. 

The advisory panel will be making 16 recommendations to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

Garlick says one change could be in the way future water projects are paid for.

"Looking at our reserves, looking at how much we're taking in at the rates we have now, and what we'll be able to do with that. The good thing about the process is we've had a chance to look at it in more detail, rather than, here's a plan, let's borrow a bunch of money in order to start it."

Garlick says projects could be undertaken in smaller amounts, then be reassessed, followed by more projects as needed.

The SAC will hold its final meeting May 19.

The review was sparked after Greater Vernon voters rejected a $70 million referendum for six water projects in 2014

 

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

Comments on the GVWU’s Stakeholders Advisory Committee

The mandate of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC), appointed by RDNO Board of Directors for the review of the Master Water Plan (MWP) is nearing its end. During its existence members were bombarded by staff approved information regarding the options of the MWP. There was no input allowed from anyone with differing views. The process could have been better if open discussions between those supporting and those questioning the proposal were allowed.

The entire reason for the creation of the SAC was that some politicians rejected the proposed MWP prior to the referendum. Nearly all politicians stated publicly during the 2014 election campaign that they would vote “NO” on the borrowing referendum. That in itself indicated that not everything was right with the plan. Yet no dissenting voice is allowed to be heard by SAC members nor do we allow an independent reviewer.

SAC Committee members, average citizens,  were unfamiliar with the issues at hand. They needed all the available information for and against the MWP’s complicated options. They also needed some background information which led to the “need” for a MWP. This they did not receive. The Board of Directors decided that only existing consultants and staff would be allowed to provide information that they themselves would choose to this uninformed Committee to consider. Imagine what they retained from the meetings! Could they arrive at a balanced conclusion?

As the political representative on the MWP Technical Committee I am very familiar with all aspects of both Master Water Plans (yes, there were two: MWP 2002 and the current proposal!). As an elected representative of the taxpayers my only interest (some refer to it as “bias”) is to see the development of the most cost effective MWP that will serve the Greater Vernon area now and for the future. I am not alone questioning the wisdom of filtering water to be used for crop irrigation.  My input and questions to the consultants could have helped SAC members to have a balanced view of the issues. They did not have to accept my views but they should have had an opportunity to hear them.

Taxpayers and SAC members may legitimately ask the question: If the proposed MWP is the best solution to the water problems of Greater Vernon how would an alternate view point hurt it? Staff and consultants should be happy to prove once and for all that they have a winner and opposing concerns are unjustified. Having denied me an opportunity to raise critical questions diminishes the value of the SAC exercise and will cast a shadow on whatever conclusions will be provided by the SAC. It will create mistrust in the process. 

It would help SAC members to find out why some politicians could not support the MWP. It could also help if they could understand why most politicians stated that they would vote “NO” on the referendum question. Just like SAC members taxpayers in general are asking  those questions.

In future reports I will provide examples of where staff (including consultants) and I differ in our approach to a reliable and more cost effective MWP. If interested look for those reports on my blog (Google coldstreamernews to access the blog).

Gyula Kiss

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

Mission Hill Treatment Plant closed - again!

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

Readers write - and a response.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "

Do we need to increase the capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir?
 

From the annual reports, why didn’t you use the outflow totals, which are shown on 3 of the 4 annual report snapshots you took? 22,440 ML, 18,811 ML, and 16,217 ML.

Your 18,000 ML capacity for aberdeen reservoir appears to be incorrect – on the RDNO website, the posted master water plan says it’s 10,330 ML and that raising the dam would bring it up to 22,000 ML.

“Writing a letter to the editor is easy. Writing a factual letter is a whole lot more difficult.” 

Indeed.

You are correct with the last paragraph! My comments follow below.

Check out the composition of the outflow totals based on your selection of the data:

2011 total: 22,440 ML (6,359 Domestic,7,810 Agriculture, 37% Unaccounted for),

2012 total: 18,811 ML (5,720 D, 5,986 Ag 38% UAF),

2013 total 16,217 ML (6,043 D, 6,815 Ag, 29% UAF).

2014 total not provided

What use is the total outflow record? It only reflects the efficiency of the distribution system. It does not reveal the annual water demand. The annual water demand is what customers use and pay for annually. The losses due to old pipes and poor management are unintended consequences.  We pay for the UAF water indirectly through our inflated water rates but have no benefit from it. Please refer to the appendices in the original report.

Note that the outflow values reflect the sum of both treatment plants not just Duteau’s.

The UAF % is reduced in 2013 and not even reported in 2014. Staff started to address the problem with apparently good results.

The capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir is reported by GVWU staff and can be referenced here. From my interpretation the capacity is over 18,000,000 cubic meters (18,000 ML).

Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong!

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

Do we need to increase the capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir?

Do we need to increase the capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir?

By Gyula Kiss

Staff of Greater Vernon Water Utility is insisting that there is an urgent need to increase the capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir without providing convincing evidence for such an increase.

“6. Question: Confirm option 2 includes upgrade/increase to storage facilities, as this was identified as an issue in earlier meetings.

Answer: If you mean increasing the storage on Aberdeen, then yes this is included in Option 2. In fact all options include “Aberdeen Dam Improvements – Raise Dam by 4 metres” with the exception of Option 6 - using OK lake as the sole potable water source.”

In order to verify (or not) this need I examined the available evidence for this need. The table below is a summary of actual annual water consumption as reported by GVWU staff in their Annual Reports from 2011 to 2014.

The data presented here clearly indicate that there is no need for an increase of the Aberdeen water supply at this time or in the foreseeable future.

The current capacity of the Aberdeen Reservoir is slightly over 18,000 ML/a. The combined average water (the sum of agriculture and domestic water) consumption of years 2011-2014 is 12,791 ML/a including the Mission Hill source. Of this agriculture consumption averages 6,856 ML/a while the average domestic consumption was 5,935 ML/a.

Should we ever need to increase the size of said reservoir it should be a joint cost born by both domestic and agriculture customers. The current proposal places the costs of both the dam height increase and the Gold-Paradise works solely on the shoulders of the domestic customers.

The question may be asked: why are our employees so keen on spending nearly $10 million on a project that is clearly not an urgent matter? For over a hundred years the current reservoir provided customers with the water they needed without having the current controls of water usage. We now have water meters, high prices to reduce usage and a Drought Management Plan to address water shortages. Why spend all that extra money when customers are already hurting due to high water rates? One more comment: Option 7 does not need to contain dam increase costs nor Gold Paradise costs either.

This report was based on the information presented in the Appendices below.

Appendix 1.  GVWU Water consumption in 2011 (GVWU Annual report - 2011)

 

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

 

Appendix 2.  GVWU Water consumption in 2012 (GVWU Annual report - 2012) 

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

Appendix 3. GVWU Water consumption in 2013 (GVWU Annual Report - 2013)

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

Appendix 4. GVWU Water consumption in 2014 (GVWU Annual Report - 2014)

 

 

 

 

Note: 1 ML= 1,000 m3

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

Letter to the Editor - and a response.

The above letter was published in the Morning Star on February 21, 2016. The following is my response to that letter.

"Nice to see that someone appreciates my efforts of trying to make sense of the MWP! Unfortunately, I cannot take all the credit for the defeat of the referendum last November. The writer may remember that there were two members of GVAC who voted against both the MWP and taking it to referendum. The rest of the GVAC members supported the plan and sent it to public scrutiny. Staff and consultants put forward their best efforts to convince the public to vote “yes”.

During the election campaign something changed. Most of the candidates running for office declared that they no longer supported the referendum and they would vote against it. Why did these candidates change their minds? Did they receive additional information on the plan? If they could share this new information with the members of SAC it would make their work a lot easier." 

The only two sitting Directors on GVAC who remained supporters of the referendum were those who were acclaimed without having to campaign. Oddly, those are the only two Directors who are NOT customers of the GVWU and do not pay for the MWP.

You mention using cash-basis to cover the costs of the MWP budget. That is exactly what staff had been doing since the 2004 referendum. Ratepayers approved the borrowing of $35 M for the MWP yet we spent over $66 M by 2012. Where did the extra cash come from? It came from direct cash extraction from ratepayers. This was against the spirit of the referendum as this cash is not shared by future ratepayers. If staff needed $66 M they should have asked for a loan approval of $66 M not $35 M.

The DCWTP was not recommended by the Consultants of MWP 2002. In fact, they declared the current plan a waste of money. Which consultants were right? Judging from the results the 2002 consultants were right.

Adding a filtration plant to Duteau was not mentioned in the 2004 MWP Addendum. That was kept a secret for fear of rejection of such large referendum bill.

The cost of borrowing $35 M is about $2.4 M annually. This represents about 12% of the total budget of $19.6 M. Feet dragging is not the cause of the high bills: the cause is the high cost of operation and maintenance of the triple  water system. We now operate the Kalamalka Lake system, the old VID system with the domestic quality irrigation water and the new raw water irrigation system built by the ratepayers of GVWU. Those are the sources of the high water cost. Ad to this the cost of the two filtration plants in the plans along with their operation costs and you’ll see where we are heading with water rates.

One would hope these high water costs are shared equally by all customers. Not a chance! The majority of RDNO Directors just approved the rates for 2016. Domestic customers will continue to subsidize ICI customers for over $2.5 M for 2016. If subsidies are necessary than the entire community should contribute through a RDNO Function. As it is only domestic water customers participate in this subsidy. The two Directors who fought hard for this subsidy are not participating in the costs. Easy to tell others to pay if you do not have to do the paying yourself!

So these are just some of the facts. There are lot more but let’s leave those for another occasion.

Writing a letter to the editor is easy. Writing a factual letter is a whole lot more difficult.

Some of you may wonder how the $2.5 M subsidy above was arrived at. Here is a quick summary:

Budget requirement for 2016:     $19,600,000
Agriculture contribution:              $     783,799
Needed from domestic:              $18,712,520
Expected water sales:                   5,820,000 m3
Cost of 1 m3 of water:                  $3.22
Water consumption ICI                   1,580,000 m3
Expected revenue    @ $3.22      $  5,080,000
Subsidized revenue @ $1.58       $  2,496,400
Difference (subsidy)                 $  2,583,631

These are real, hard figures calculated from the data provided by staff. We can manipulated anyway we wish but the real facts are these. Anyone who gets his/her water for less than $3.22 per m3 is being subsidized. The base fee of $408/a in real term is the value of 126.71 m3 of water. In other words we pay for 126.71 m3 of water without getting a drop.

Only water customers are forced to subsidize ICI customers.

The annual repayment of borrowing costs us 898,470 cubic meters of water. Every item in the budget can be expressed in terms of unit cost of water ($3.22 per m3). Employees' wages: every $10,000 costs 3,106 m3. Thus, if we subsidize anyone we force the rest of the customers to pay more than their fair share of those costs.

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

Invitation to tender - GVWU.

 

See the entire tender document here.

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

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.

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

Readers write - We’ve been water boarded!

We’ve been water boarded!  Don’t believe me? Just check your recently mailed quarterly utilities invoice for Oct. 1, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2015.

 

Amnesty International says water boarding is torture. So does the United States Supreme Court. That’s why, when the CIA wants to water board prisoners, it keeps them outside America in Guantanamo Bay. But that’s physical water boarding; ours is fiscal and the torture is to our wallets.

 

Greater Vernon Water utility has refined their local technique of water boarding (with the rubber stamping connivance of RDNO political appointees) into an esoteric art form that gouges the pocketbooks of each and everyone of us.

 

In 2010, we were charged a base fee of $50.17 per quarter  that included up to 10 cubic meters of water at no additional charge. Our base fee then was in the upper quartile of normal municipal practice and the amount of water included  was in the lower quartile.  A bit pricey for what we got but still not totally out-of-whack with what other cities were doing.

 

Our latest base fee has jumped to $101.80 per quarter, it does not include a single drop of water and that is for a commodity that is absolutely essential for life. That’s $407.20 to Greater Vernon Water per annum for Sweet Fanny Adams. That is the fiscal water boarding you and I are being subjected to. It makes Greater Vernon Water unique. It puts us completely off the charts. It is unlikely that any other city in Canada  charges so much for so little. And, have you heard?  It isn’t going to stop ... our water utility has just asked for another 2% raise.

 

Speak up now or forever hold your piece. Shake off your voter complacency and become outspoken. Greater Vernon Water and their political enablers are counting on your lack of participation to let them serve their wants rather than our needs.

 

Are you going to continue letting them soak you for  millions to treat water to drinking quality standards then spray it on such low value crops as hay and silage corn? Are you going to stay mute when you see overhead crop irrigation occurring on windy or hot sunny days when most of it goes to waste? Well, if you do not speak up my voice will just be lost in the wilderness as was that of Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss.

 

Seems that with regard to water our plutocratic and politico mantra is to either ignore or give the squeaky wheel the boot.  That’s led to us being water boarded and why it is necessary for you and me to take action if we want it to stop. Defeating the water referendum was not sufficient.  We need to put a stop to the indecisive dithering and get a solution.

 

Juliette Cunningham and Jim Garlick preside over what happens to water. Make sure they hear your voice

 

 Jim Bodkin

 

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

Water source switch - Mission Hill to Duteau

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