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!

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

A small victory!

At the October 18th meeting of the North Okanagan Regional District Board of Directors the following motion was passed:

"13. Transfer of Water Licenses

RECOMMENDATION 18

(Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral  Areas B and C)That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, staff be directed to submit an application to the Ministry of Environment to transfer the existing Greater Vernon Water's Kalamalka Lake Water License from Coldstream Creek to the Kalamalka Lake intake."

Yours truly has been promoting this action for many years with no success. The response from consultants and staff has always been that this would not be approved by the government agencies. This argument was inconsistent with the Water Act which permitted the transfer of the “Point of Diversion” (PoD) of a water license to a different point within the water course provided it did not affect adversely the system. Moving the PoD downstream within a system is environmentally beneficial and it should be encouraged.

If this transfer request is successful then it would serve as precedent for future PoD transfer requests to Okanagan Lake.

Let’s hope that this small victory is a harbinger of greater victories in the future!

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

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

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

Morning Star Poll results

Are you confident a stakeholders committee will review Greater Vernon's master water plan independently?

Cast Your Vote

You have already participated in this poll. Thank you!

Current Results

question	result
Yes	4
No	27

DISCLAIMER: This web poll is informal, not scientific. It reflects opinions of site visitors who voluntarily participate. Results may not represent the opinions of the public as a whole. Black Press is not responsible for the statistical accuracy of opinions expressed here.

Consider a fictional story:

There is a jury trial in a court of law. The independent jury is to make a decision on the merits of a plan that could have alternate options. The presiding judge and the alternate judge both support the proposed plan. The lawyers and the expert witnesses are all supporters and/or creators of the plan in question. The proponents of the alternatives can't present their case, they are not represented by Counsel and have no expert witnesses allowed. Is this fictional trial fixed?

Hopefully, the jury will see through the attempted fix!

"David Sewell, the CAO of RDNO, says their goal now is to create a new master water plan for Greater Vernon.

"It's not an attempt to silence critics, it's to engage and walk through in a reasoned manner what we've done, what we haven't done and why the master plan is where it is, and if we have to make amendments we'll consider those things too."

"Sewell says creating a new master water plan will take input and conciliation on everyone's part.

"Everybody's got an interest in water.  Everybody has valuable input and we've got to make sure we capture that relative to their use of water, the importance of water and also trying to get the people who haven't had an avenue to directly engage into the master water plan up until now." (KISS FM News, 9/18/2015).

I guess that invitation is not extended to everyone, only to those whose views are slanted in a specific direction.

Terms of Reference for the SAC is accessible here. Note that all references relate to the 2012 MWP.

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

Vernon Water Issues

 

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

Re-Work of Master Water Plan Right Move

Posted on 6/1/2015 by Ron Manz

KISS FM News

 

Greater Vernon's Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan have expressed their approval of local politicians committing to create a new water plan last week.

Citizen's chair Terry Mooney says that decision is a first step in rethinking the idea of using the Duteau Creek system for farm usage.

He says the high cost of filtration for irrigation water is driving the price up for everyone.

"The fact that they are treating the water from the Duteau Creek system for agricultural use, that's the single most expensive element in the whole water picture, so domestic waters are paying for that as well as consumption rates.  It's the filtration that's costing a lot of money." 

He says the high cost of water locally is largely due to a $400 flat fee on water bills.

That's because of the up front, front loaded base costs and those base costs are what the Regional District of the North Okanagan uses to cover their capital projects and the continued development of Duteau Creek for fresh water."

Mooney says the referendum defeat last fall showed politicians residents are not going to stand for high water bills when there are ways to cutting those costs/.

"They are going to have to do something obviously.  If you have a commodity and you price it beyond people's ability to pay, something has to happen.  You either have to cut your costs or reduce your services or something different would have to happen."

Mooney says a petition they have been circulating has the support of close to a thousand signatures asking for an independent review of the Master Water Plan.

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

Call For Plan Ban Rejected

Written by Peter McIntyre 
Friday, 06 March 2015 16:21

A citizen's group says public opinion appears to be swaying over the direction of Greater Vernon's master water plan.

Terry Mooney from Citizens For Change is pleased to hear local politicians at least talking about limiting the Duteau Creek source to farming, and switching domestic customers to Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes which he says would be far less costly.

"I think there's a will now for the public representatives to at least have a good look at this master water plan and fix the mistakes that were made in the 1960's and 70's," Mooney tells Kiss FM.

Mooney says his group is disappointed the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee decided against a moratorium on all master water plan projects based on last November's failed referendum.

"We were trying to make the distinction that it has nothing to do with the day to day operations, but we still need the direction that money is not to be spent on any of the six projects tied to the referendum," says Mooney.

GVAC vice chair Jim Garlick disagreed, saying that vote was for borrowing 70 million dollars for six projects, not a vote on the plan itself.

BX Silver Star director Mike Macnabb led the opposition to the motion made by Coldstream director Gyula Kiss, saying a ban doesn't make sense, given that everything they do with water, relates to the master water plan.

Vernon director Bob Spiers supported the ban, saying if at some point they decide the Duteau source won't be used for domestic use, studies in this year's budget will be unnecessary.

"Why spend that money?, asked Spiers. "It should be put into a pending reserve for master water plan projects."

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

 "...vote was for borrowing 70 million dollars for six projects, not a vote on the plan itself."

I wonder how we could actually go ahead with a plan that has no funding. 

Unless we ask people why they turned down the borrowing it is simply a guess why they did so. Coldstream residents voted 70% against the referendum. Did they do so because of the money or because they did not like this particular plan? Perhaps they did not like the idea that after spending close to $200 million they would still be irrigating agricultural crops with very expensive filtered water.

Just for the sake of argument let's assume they turned it down because of the money. Where would GVWU get the funds to implement the plan? Will they start collecting the $70 million through increased water rates? Perhaps. But having rejected the borrowing at an estimated annual repayment of about $5 million would these same ratepayers be happy with increased water rates in the order of $10-14 million a year? GVW did that after the 2004 referendum but now there are more careful watchdogs keeping their eyes on the till. Santa Claus (senior governments) is unlikely to come up with the dough so our investigative reporters should find out from where the money is expected to come from for the "unrejected" MWP.

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

Water Rates Highest in Okanagan

Posted on 2/5/2015 by Betty Selin

A group of Greater Vernon residents is concerned about higher water rates.

The Group, "Citizens for Change to the Master Water Plan" is concerned that the budget debate at GVAC will proceed to set water rates, before they have an opportunity to present their proposed new direction for the Master Water Plan

The group, which includes several former politicians, says they have joined together to assess the staff driven requests for higher water rates to fund the long term capital programs and to increase the reserves for future needs.

The group says they want to ensure that the results of the No vote in the November 15 referendum, is upheld. They are in the process of preparing a presentation for the GVAC which will provide recommendations for needed changes to the Master Water plan.

At the January 22nd meeting of the GVAC, there was no action taken on the request for a moratorium. The group is concerned politicians are prepared to consider "back-door" funding that will move RDNO pre-referendum programs forward by raising water rates to cover the costs of the expenditures, under the cover of 'reserves', and to date without public input.

They're also worried the budget debate scheduled for Thursday morning will set water rates, before they have an opportunity to present the proposed new direction for the Master Water Plan

Water rates for the same amount of drinking water in 2014 show that Greater Vernon domestic water users pay $899.70, more than twice the Penticton rate of $427.62, and triple the $291.98 for the same amount of water from Kelowna bills. From 2010 to 2014 the cost of a cu. meter of drinking water has doubled for Greater Vernon water users. Changes to the billing structure mean that less of the water bill is from metered usage and more is coming from arbitrary fixed front end charges.

Our citizen's group which includes, Janet Green, Wayne McGrath, Klaus Tribes and Maria Besso, is asking that all budget approvals supporting water rate increases be suspended until March 5th, or that a special meeting of the GVAC be held to allow elected representatives to be informed of the proposed new direction to the Master Water Plan from this community group.

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

PRESS RELEASE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2015

FROM: CITIZENS FOR CHANGE TO THE MASTER WATER PLAN (CCMWP)

We are a group of Greater Vernon residents who have joined together to assess the staff driven requests for higher water rates to fund the long term capital programs and to increase the reserves for future needs.

Our group wants to ensure that the public will, expressed by the November 15 referendum, is upheld. At the GVAC meeting on January 22, we requested a moratorium on all spending approval relating to the defeated referendum and expressed our view that a new direction needed to be pursued. We are in the process of preparing a presentation for the GVAC which will provide recommendations for needed changes to the Master Water plan.

At the January 22^nd meeting of the GVAC, there was no action taken on our request for a moratorium. However we noted that the GVAC seemed to focus on defining mechanisms to defeat or by-pass the negative result of the referendum, but they also acknowledged that a new direction to the Master Water Plan was required. It appears that our elected representatives are prepared to consider “back-door” funding that will move RDNO pre-referendum programs forward by raising water rates to cover the costs of the expenditures, under the cover of ‘reserves’, and to date without public input.

Our group is concerned that the budget debate scheduled for tomorrow morning will proceed to set water rates, before we have an opportunity to present our proposed new direction for the Master Water Plan, and then the taxpayer rate will be locked in to commitments defeated by the water plan referendum. Water rates for the same amount of drinking water in 2014 show that Greater Vernon domestic water users pay $899.70, more than twice the Penticton rate of $427.62, and triple the $291.98 in Kelowna, for the same amount of water. From 2010 to 2014 the cost of a cu. meter of drinking water has doubled for Greater Vernon water users.

Changes to the billing structure mean that less of the water bill is from metered usage and more is coming from arbitrary fixed front end charges.

Our citizen’s group is again calling for a moratorium until the GVAC has an opportunity to review our proposal. The next available opportunity for our presentation is March 5 and we ask that all budget approvals supporting water rate increases be suspended until that date, or we ask that a special meeting of the GVAC be convened, to allow our elected representatives to be informed of the proposed new direction to the Master Water Plan.

Contact Information: Terry Mooney, temo@telus.net or 250-542-2847

 Eric Jackson, Janet Green, Wayne McGrath, 

Klaus Tribes, Maria Besso, Dennis Windsor, 

Jim Bodkin, Terry Mooney. Absent: Dana Mills

See also KISS FM News

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

The first Special GVAC meeting done - many more to come.

The first post referendum MWP meeting has come and gone. Participants, including members of the surprisingly large audience, presented their individual vision on the future of the Greater Vernon Water Plan. 

The general view was that the plan should investigate new directions. No direction was endorsed yet but the general consensus was that the public should be involved in the new direction and should own the new plan.

My input was simple: return to Duteau to agriculture use, no treatment of any sort, and provide treated domestic water to all domestic customers from the Kalamalka/Okanagan Lake system. That would require removal of domestic customers from the current mixed water system to avoid treatment of water used for agriculture. This should be the direction we would all work towards and develop the details as we go forward.

Anyone wishing to have his/her voice heard could get a hold of any politician or provide their thoughts to me by email (gyula1@shaw.ca) or to this blog blog via the comment function. Remember, a new Plan is not going to be free but our investment should result in a plan that is the best for the long term water supply, both domestic and agriculture, for the ratepayers of Greater Vernon.

Let us hope for success!

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

Readers Write - Letter to the Editor (published with permission)

I believe the resounding defeat of the master water plan referendum shows that you cannot fool all the people all the time and underscores the need for politicans to take off their rose coloured glasses.

The provision of an adequate amount of safe drinking water is absolutely essential and elected officials need to hold those senior members of the water utility who have just been showing part of the overall water picture to the public to account.

It is ridiculous how much emphasis has been put on getting drinking water from Duteau Creek whilst largely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in Coldstream and Vernon get their water from the Mission Hill waterworks that draws its water from Kal Lake. Doing so distorts the water reality.

I suspect a lot of people currently getting their drinking water from Duteau Creek could be switched at reasonable expense to the Mission Creek water that comes from Kal Lake.

Problem is, from the perspective of those with vested interests, that would really show what a white elephant Duteau Creek is as a source of drinking water.

Intially, we were told that we needed to spend millions on the Duteau Creek waterworks because the province would not give us enough water rights to take water from Kal or Okanagan Lakes to meet our needs. That drum is no longer being beaten with much enthusiam perhaps because it’s credibility has been undermined by the fact that other communities bordering the lakes have water licences permitting them to draw what they need from the lakes. It’s hard to believe that the province would deny Vernon what it has granted to Kelowna, that is unless we fail to make a good case that we need the water licences. The horrendous cost of turning Duteau Creek water into something drinkable makes a darn good case, does it not?

Another thing the senior people at the water utility have told us is that Interior Health has ordered us to filter our drinking water. Quite frankly, that’s pretty hard to swallow. I think it far more likely that Interior Health has said that our drinking water needs to meet certain standards and left it up to our water gurus to figger out how to meet those standards.

I’m thinking too that Interior Health has few if any concerns about the bulk of our drinking water that comes from Kal Lake. Duteau Creek water is another matter entirely. Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars poured into making it drinkable, Duteau Creek water, especially at the time of spring runoff, has too many suspended particules that diminsh the efficacy of chlorination or ultra violet treatments. The fact that a lot of cattle poop in the creek and a lot of runoff from nearby fields contaminate it as it meanders through agricultural lands on it’s way to the multi million dollar waterworks does not reduce the cost of purification to drinking water standards either.

I’m no expert but I am a firm believer that you do not have to be a chef in order to criticize the cooking. What amazes me is that our elected officials ever approved spending so much to make water from a nonsuitable source drinkable in the first place.

Now, our elected officials need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more economical plan. They also need to do so with their eyes wide open. It is common knowledge that fudging terms of reference can hamstring outside experts into being unable to recommend what they otherwise would do if not so fettered.

Over to you, our newly elected officials. We need you to sort this out for us. An adequate source of drinking water is a fundamental need, having it done at affordable cost is a fundamental need too. Kindly roll up your sleeves and get on with the job. Give the raspberry to any so-called experts who expound taking water from a source that is so initially unsuitable for making it drinkable that it will never be affordable.

It upsets me that letter such as this needed to be written. For goodness sake you elected officials, do you not realize that your constituents rely on you to determine how many beans make five on the provision of a need so fundamental as enough safe drinking water. Shame on your predeccessors, shame too on those of you who held elected office whilst some of the prolifigate water decisions were made over the past several administrations.

I am one irate citizen who feels badly let down.

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