Master Water Plan Facts.

Interesting to note that during these extraordinary water problems the only water supply that had no water advisory is the Out Back water supply from Okanagan Lake. Both the Duteau supply and the Kalamalka Lake supply experienced water quality advisories. In fact, even Kelowna is under water quality advisory due to high turbidity of Mission Creek, the largest surface water contributor to Okanagan Lake. It's effect does not affect the north end of Okanagan Lake.

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

Readers write - Observations on the MWP review process.

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.

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

Group Seeks Council Support For Water Change - KISS FM

Written by Peter McIntyre 
Tuesday, 24 March 2015 04:17

The group Citizens for Change says Greater Vernon residents are getting hosed on their water rates.

Former city manager Eric Jackson told Vernon council, using the Duteau Creek source for domestic and farming is the reason the rates have tripled since 2003.

"The impact of this is that people on fixed incomes are finding it very difficult to pay their water bills. It's making Vernon less competitive with other Okanagan cities," says Jackson.

The group wants a change in the master water plan to make Duteau Creek water just for farming, and using Kal and Okanagan lakes for domestic.

"The high costs that citizens are paying is now going to to pay for expensive treatment of the worst quality water that we have in this area," says Jackson, who served as director of water reclamation for the city for 25 years and is currently a professor at Okanagan College.

Councillor Juliette Cunningham -- who is also Greater Vernon Advisory Committee chair -- says they will get public input as part of the process.

"I don't think we can assume to know what failed. Was it the plan, or the funding for the plan? I don't think any of us are really clear about that, and it's something we need to clarify," Cunningham tells Kiss FM.

Council will discuss the group's request for support at its next meeting April 13.

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

Actually, I am quite sure I know what failed: it was the referendum that asked people to approve the borrowing of $70 million for 6 specific projects of the Master Water Plan. The $70 million was not for unspecified expenditures: it was quite specific. No money - no plan.

I could be wrong and if you fellow water customers think I am wrong you can correct me by commenting on this blog.

The Citizens' group also made the presentation to Coldstream Council on Monday night. I welcome all ratepayers to provide input.

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

Readers' write - Comments on the MWP

It's very troubling that Regional District of North Okanagan bureaucrats are trying to circumvent public input on certain aspects of the master water plan by having controversial issues not on agenda introduced as late items during a public meeting.  Doing this essentially means the public is not allowed to prepare prior to the meeting.  Also troubling is that you never have an agenda item for "Questions From the Press and Public" at the end of meetings.

I'm not very familiar with the justification and timeline involved with raising Aberdeen dam, but this was one of the items recently rejected by Vernon and district voters.  With all the public pressure currently being applied on you about many things, including peer review and investigation of other water sources, RDNO staff seems quite disingenuous with their report.

They seem to think that the referendum was defeated because of a lack of Provincial grant funding.  That may be the case for some voters, but certainly not all.  My mother and siblings voted no after careful consideration and upon reflection of water rate increases imposed since the Duteau treatment plant experiment started around twelve years ago.  Others, perhaps the majority, questioned the technical and environmental aspects of the plan.  Why is it so expensive, grants or not?  Why is it so limited in scope?  What is the resulting carbon footprint?  Why would you forge ahead with any aspect of this MWP without first determining the direction your ratepayers actually want you to go?

Also attached are some thoughts on the meter reading aspects of this late item report. 

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

Additional information re: MWP - Key principles for creating the single water utility

Key principles for creating the single water utility.

The above principles were developed and adopted by the founding members of Greater Vernon Water. Let us examine how those principles worked out over the years.

a.     Currently GVAC is an advisory body to the RDNO Board. GVAC is composed of 3 members from Vernon, 2 from Coldstream and the Directors of Electoral Areas B and C. However, all final decisions are made by the Board of Directors representing Greater Vernon with the composition of 4 Directors from Vernon and one each of Coldstream and Electoral Areas B and C. The current Governance structure is contrary to the key principles of the GVWU agreement.

b.     The water quality is not the same for all non-agricultural customers. It is not a reality now and will not be the reality 5 years from now after the $70 million is expended. Currently the MHWTP water quality is better than that of DCWTP water. Five years from now the situation will reverse when the water will be filtered at Mission Hill. This is contrary to the key principles of the GVWU agreement.

c.    The agricultural industry is indeed insulated from high water rates. However, this comes at a tremendously high cost to the domestic customers. Agriculture’s contribution to the 2014 budget of $18,600,000 is $904,452 or 4.86%. Would a stand alone agriculture irrigation system could sustain itself for $904,452? It’s anyone’s guess. Estimated agricultural water consumption is about 60% of total water consumption. Average cost of 1 cubic meter of agriculture water is about $0.07 while the same volume of water of the same quality is costing domestic customers at least $2.16 if the customer is using 5000 m3 per quarter. I a domestic customer uses 50 m3 the unit cost goes up to $3.10.  Industrial, commercial and institutional customers get a break at slightly over $1.50 per m3. The key principle of insulated agricultural rates meets the intent but at an exorbitant cost to domestic customers.

    Water use for domestic customers is also strictly controlled as to when they can use their water and are urged to conserve water. The same water for irrigation customers is a fraction of the domestic cost and much less controlled as the attached photo illustrates.

d.    Non-agricultural rates are not based on a volume basis and are not uniform throughout the service area. In fact, low volume users pay the highest rates based on a unit volume. 

Examples:

        Customers with no consumption:           $99.80
        Customers using 10 m3 per quarter:      $10.48/m3
        Customers using 50 m3 per quarter:      $  3.10/m3
        Customers using 100 m3 per quarter:    $  2.42/m3
        Customers using 1000 m3 per quarter:  $  2.18/m3
        ICI customers pay                                   $  1.50/m3 plus $99.80 base fee
                                                                                                  
It is obvious that the non-agricultural rate structure does not follow the key principles adopted by the founding parties.
             
e.    This principle does not make sense. How can we grow beyond our ability to provide water to the growing population?

It is obvious from the forgoing that all of the principles were broken. So was the trust customers had in the Master Water Plan.

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

The cost of domestic water from Duteau Creek WTP.

In 2012, the latest data available, the treatment of one cubic meter of water at Duteau Creek cost an average of $0.118. However, only about 15% of this water was for domestic consumption. Thus, one cubic meter of domestic water cost about $0.79. In 2014 domestic customers are required to absorb the cost of repairing the Haddo Lake dam at a cost of $2 million. This will increase the cost of domestic water from DCWTP to $2.30 per cubic meter.

As long as the domestic and irrigation water will remain mixed these kind of expenses will recur generally at the domestic customers' expense. 

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