Readers write - Another satisfied water customer (not).

Glenn Mitchell, Managing Editor

To The Editor, The Morning Star: 2017 February 10
 

When we relocated just outside of Enderby a few years ago we knew our residence was serviced by Enderby water and this influenced our decision. We knew that the RDNO billed us for this water and we also had to service a debt they incurred on our behalf. Our RDNO Area "F" Director at the time was Jackie Pearase. She made some public comments indicating our water bills would soar far beyond what other Enderby subscribers would pay, which prompted me to contact her. She responded and set up a meeting for me with her and some senior RDNO managers.

An Engineering manager said our increase was due to maintenance of a pump station owned and operated by Enderby. She was very dismissive when I questioned this. She finally said that the user rate was going up because "we hadn't had an increase for quite some time". Ms. Pearase failed to prevent it then, but we kept in touch and she did move to prevent a planned increase for the subsequent year.

I stayed interested and began a slow learning process. I discovered multiple water subscribers within Area "F" who were serviced and billed directly by the City of Enderby, and that our Water Local Service Area was quite unique and not very efficient. Extensive lobbying, including a rather naive presentation to the RDNO Board of Directors, finally resulted in us being billed directly by the City of Enderby as well. However the RDNO still collects an annual user fee and a debt service tax.
This was a huge relief. It's been one full year now and we saw our total water bill lowered by a few hundred dollars. Kudos to Enderby staff and Council for trying hard to keep their water rates affordable for most of their users. They charge us an out-of-town Parcel Tax too and use these funds to maintain our services. RDNO now has very little direct involvement with our water and this is how it should be.

I attended a second meeting with RDNO senior staff during this process and realized meetings with them were largely an exercise in futility. Learning from the past, I audio recorded it and later noted many contradictions. I also recorded the Chief Financial Officer (at the time) stating that they do not leave financial decisions in the hands of politicians. What?

Now our area representative is Herman Halvorson. We didn't question water rates last year during transition, assuming they would be fine tuned later. I have initiated contact with him numerous times on other matters but he has never responded or acknowledged any correspondence. The only times I have ever been able to communicate directly with him is just before Board or Committee meetings. Note - I'm often the only layperson at these meetings. Get involved, people, or you will lose the right! Please check their website and direct your feedback to RDNO Board members.

This brings us to the 2017 preliminary budget. The Small Utilities Rates Imposition Bylaw 2735 plans to increase our RDNO Infrastructure Base Fee by 14.3% over three years. I attended the Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting December 15, 2016 where the budget was initially presented and sent an email to Director Halvorson the next day expressing concerns and raising questions. As per normal, I got no response from anyone. The next meeting was January 4 where they were to discuss the Bylaw but I couldn't get in because of public outrage over the gymnastics club fiasco. (I witnessed Ms. Martens' presentation in December and saw the disgusting reactions of RDNO politicians and staff) Later I found out the Bylaw was sent back to staff for revision and thought maybe they were considering the very valid points we raised in our letter. No such luck.

The next EAAC meeting discussing our rate increase was February 9, 2017 so we refined our position and, as per normal, gave Mr. Halvorson copies before the meeting. He refused to accept what he called "last minute items". The Agenda was published only three days before the meeting, which is when we discovered nothing had changed with the proposed rate increase. Isn't that last minute too? I pointed out he has been aware of our concerns for a long time and that he didn't respond. He said that since I had cc'd the RDNO Small Utilities Manager, he didn't have to respond because staff would. Staff didn't, and their position is they only reply when a letter is actually addressed to them; not a copy. I asked him to make a motion to keep our fee at 2016 rates and he refused.

Now I have to request to appear as a delegation at the Board of Directors meeting where they adopt the Bylaw, whenever that may be. We have very strong arguments that a rate imposition increase is not warranted this year but we cannot count on Director Halvorson to advocate on our behalf. Isn't that his actual job? Perhaps a four year term is too long without recourse.

Director Fleming is concerned that the RDNO does not communicate very well. He was there when staff and Chair Halvorson tried to sanction me for using a recording device. I've got news for him - Board members don't communicate amongst themselves or with RDNO staff very well either. So sad.

Dana Mills
Enderby, BC

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

Readers write - Comments on the plight of the Rhythmic gymnasts.

Good evening Mike, Rick, Bob, Hank, Herman, and to the rest who I have copied this email to.

Today in the North Okanagan it has come to light that 4 directors are trying to shut down a privately run gymnastics facility that has been in operation since 2009.  I feel this needs to be addressed.

The GVA and areas that NORD serves has a critical shortage of sports, and recreational facilities.  If a sports association wanted to establish a facility the amount of dollars required to do so would be astronomical.  When I look at the facilities that we get to enjoy the common them is they are in Vernon and owned by the taxpayer leased or rented back to the user groups. 

Here we have a facility that is privately owned and operated.  This facility does not appear to be a tax burden to the residents.  It also frees up floor space other groups can use in municipal owned facilities. 

Having privately owned facilities in our area benefits our community.  We are currently undertaking a huge ice sheet expansion that is going to cost taxpayers millions of dollars just to construct, funds to furnish, and an ongoing expense to maintain.  Think of the tax dollars our citizens could be using to address other issues that is now tied up in the hockey rink expansion. 

Had we allowed a private company to come in buy land, build and operate a new arena we would have the needed ice surface for this community at 0 cost to our taxpayers.  Here we have a person who saw the need for a gymnastics club in our area that is furnished to the needs of her program.  It costs no money to the taxpayer.  In fact her property generates tax dollar for you to spend.  She attracts people to the area through competitions and programs.  She also keeps our local youth at home with their families while pursuing their dreams and training in gymnastic and theater skills.

As some will know I will be running in the upcoming 2017 provincial elections.  One of my points I will be marketing is we need to as communities find ways to be open for business.  Closing down businesses, because a building is to big is not encouraging growth.  Shutting down sports programs because they do not lease city owned facilities is a conflict of interest.  Instead of closing this facility may I encourage you to try a novel idea.  Keep it open, work with Camille to market her facility and program, and look for way to attract more private owned facilities to open up shop in not just your electoral areas but in NORD communities as well. 

Lets actually move forward in 2017 to build our communities and attract development.  We need to get past the trap of "not in my backyard" and start thinking "How can we get this in yard or my neighbors yard" 

Lets start here.  Support Camille and her program.  It isn't going to cost you a dime.  I will be a win for the entire area. 

Thank you for your time,  I trust you will do well in making Vernon and Coldstream a stronger community.

Your Sincerely,

Don Jefcoat

Posted with permission from the author.

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

Readers write - Former Cirque du Soleil Performer teaching in Lumby!

This week, twenty four children aged 5 to 11 are learning acrobatics, juggling, trapeze, theatrical games and yoga from former Cirque du Soleil performer Alvin Tam who has recently arrived from Las Vegas!

Alvin and his team are also helping the children create a Circus Show that will occur this coming Friday at noon at Cedar Bridge School. This extraordinary team includes Barefoot Sanctuary's co-founder Jada Tam, current Cirque du Soleil KA performer Marylene Hickok Cameron and local talent Neave Allen and Nathan Allen. 

This is a one of a kind opportunity to meet these phenomenal artists!

• WHAT: Kids Circus Show and Meet the Artists
• WHERE: Cedar Bridge School, 730 Whitevale Rd., Lumby.
• WHEN: Friday, August 12, noon

For more information, contact: me or Alvin at (778) 212-3294 or email alvin@barefootsanctuary.com.

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

SPKL'ers Information

Hi SPKL'ers, 

Splash Mob is coming together fast and furious. My head is going in so many directions I'm almost exploding! But I'm super excited....

I also really need all your help.
 

Two days ago we launched a fundraiser. It's only $1,200 we're trying to raise, but we really need this money! Please help me by sending this to EVERYONE you know, and expressing the importance of it.  Click on the photo to see the video!

Now, a reminder that this Saturday we're having our first work party! I'll have a big stack of leaflets, and we'll head out door-to-door and chat to people

.
Also, a few thoughts on getting people to come to Splash Mob:

1) First off, I challenge each SPKL'er to personally bring FIVE PEOPLE to Splash Mob!

2) I have found that direct emails work much better than Facebook posts. Although it's best to do both
 

3) Talk to everyone you come across! If you're not able to attend for all of Saturday, perhaps you can swing by and grab some leaflets to hand out to people over the course of the week. 

More to come soon. Our poster will be ready by tomorrow, and next we're working on getting in all the newspapers and on the radio.

Thanks everybody! 

Brynne

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

Letter to the Editor - Readers write.

I watched the incredible Canada Day fireworks celebration at Kal Beach whistling and hollering along with the crowd! What a great display, culminating in a crescendo of explosive power that had us all thrilled. It is therefore with some trepidation that I dare raise this issue – a lot of garbage is going into the our drinking water supply for a few minutes of wonder. This is a photo of the fireworks debris we collected in a few minutes along a small portion of lakefront the morning after. It felt like a hangover, not worth the fun of the night before.  And this is just the pieces that we could reach, much more was visible on the shallow lake bottom.  How much more covers the north end of the lake?

About 2/3 of the debris was paper and will bio-degrade with time, but the rest is plastic that will never disappear.  Between the annual Halloween fireworks and now Canada Day on the beach (rather than on land as in the past), we are polluting our drinking water source at an increasing rate.

So at the risk of being labelled a grumpy old man, I would at least like to get a discussion going among all of us who love Kalamalka Lake.

Paul Christie

Concerned Resident

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

Readers write - Argument for amphitheatre not convincing

Ms. Bond's defence of the proposed Amphitheatre in an interview with Chris Walker of CBC's, Daybreak South, this morning, was less than convincing. 

Her argument that the site is a "bowl" and therefore, the sound will be contained, is illogical: it is open to the East. "Amphi", means "both sides" or "two sides", in this case, literally and figuratively. Anyone 

with local knowledge knows that sounds that emerge from the west travel up the Valley.
 

Ms. Bond states that the foot-print will be light, and fails to take into consideration the integrity of the eco-system that exists.
 

Her suggestion that my tax dollars be used to find a location for this project in Coldstream offends me. The host, Mr. Walker, asked why other locations such as Penticton, are not under consideration, to which she answered that there is not much public land on which to build. Has she contacted our First Nations? They are excellent community partners as noted in Osoyoos.

 Katy Vella Pace
Coldstream, BC

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

Readers write re: Amphitheatre.

Re: proposed outdoor amphitheatre:  

After many a gruelling trip to the heart of the Big Smoke, south of us, I have breathed a deep sigh of relief as I turn off the highway to savour the stunningly beautiful, natural gateway to my peaceful community: Coldstream. The ravine ecosystem is a pocket treasure, that is intrinsic to that viewscape. The proposed project is absolutely incompatible with the diversity of rural values we enjoy.

Katy Vella Pace

Coldstream, BC.

cc. Editor Morning Star

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

Readers write - presentation to Coldstream Council

Hello everyone,

Please make time to attend the Coldstream Council Meeting on MONDAY, APRIL 25 at 6 PM at the Coldstream Municipal Offices on Kal Lake Rd. where we are doing a Powerpoint presentation about our concerns regarding the OSFS's proposed amphitheatre

in the gully in front of Okanagan College. Pat Andrews is doing the talking for the PPT. We will be first to go at 6 PM sharp for 10 minutes followed by comments and questions from the council members. It should take no more than 1/2 hour. 

It is extremely important that we have huge support in terms of numbers and passionate opposition, so please plan to attend. 

We will be adding up the number of signatures on the petitions  this weekend so please get your numbers to me by tomorrow. You can either drop off your sheets to 9085 College Dr. or give them to me (Joan) at the meeting. 

The tide is turning vs the OSFS, but we need to make sure we do NOT let up the pressure. 

If you need them, there are extra copies of the blank petition forms and flyers at the front desk at Kal Fitness on the clip board. 

Thanks for all you have done to help our cause. We must get this thing stopped once and for all,

Connie, Joan, et al. 

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

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!

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

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.

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

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

 

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

Readers write - Are you confused?

Anyone  else confused by the info coming out of RDNO? On Kiss FM we are all praised for reducing use by 26% this year, now it seems we are being shamed for only "marginally" cutting back and that we may have to go to stage two to safeguard the supply (that now stands at normal for this time of year) . We need an above average snowfall season to fill the lakes? They filled and spilled for two months this spring on a well below normal snowpack. Oh the politics of this whole thin make my head spring. They are certainly doing a good job of one thing, and that is scaring anyone off from using water, and it's only going to cost us even more next year because of this. End rant.

Don't be confused! We need to show that we are short of water to justify the $6.4 M (2012 dollars)! Are we really short of water? Click here for the answer.

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

Readers write - "Never ending Cycle".

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

Glyphosate (roundup) is proven carcigen.

It is now admitted by the International Cancer Agency that glyphosate residues in engineered food cause cancer.

 

The glyphosate used in Roundup ready GM crops is now proven to be a human carcinogen and it is also proven it makes its way into underground and surface water. Shouldn't this be enough to cause great concerns among people responsible for the safety of our water?

One way councils can make sure they put safety first would be to declare their intention to see GM crops replaced by organic agriculture, without pesticides and herbicides. Read more.

 

Huguette Allen

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

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.

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

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. 

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

Readers write - Coldstreamer responds

The following comments appeared in response to my blog posting entitled “More interesting facts regarding the borrowing referendum”. It is an interesting comment so I wish to share it and my response with you.
Anonymous said...

    Who's counting? I am!

    Phase 1 of the (updated) 2012 Master Water Plan recommends that $70 millon in Priority Projects be completed over the next 7 years. By provincial law, GVW requires voter approval to borrow this much, so we are headed to a referendum this November.

    Back in 2004, Greater Vernon residents approved the long-term borrowing of $35 million to help fund water system improvements, including the construction of the Duteau Creek Treatment (Clarification) Plant.

    Over the past decade, a total of $66 million has been invested into our regional water system, of which $18.4 million was funded by provincial and federal grants.

    Let's flip this question around:
    Why WOULDN'T we invest in our regional water system? And... why wouldn't we vote YES to borrow the funds, keep rates as low as possible, and share those costs with all current and future customers?

    The RDNO website contains up-to-date information about our Master Water Plan and the upcoming referendum:

    - Water Vote 2014

    - Progress Since 2004

    September 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM

My response

I would agree with you 100% if I were a member of the consulting team or a member of staff recommending the approval of this referendum.

I do know that we will need money for a water plan but this is not the plan I would favour. You see I lost confidence in both the consultants and staff in 2004. Let me tell you why.

The first Master Water Plan was produced in 2002. It was hailed as the best plan ever prepared by the best water engineers of Canada. It was promoted by staff in the mall, at various public presentations and by politicians in political rallies. Everyone was quite happy and politicians promoting the plan were elected into office.
The MWP 2002 promoted total separation as the solution to the water distribution problems. A peer review group supported the plan and various agreements were signed by the participants based on the plans recommendations.

However, something political must have happened. The plan was abandoned and a new variation was promoted, a variation the original planners rejected as too expensive and senseless. They warned against treating water aimed for agricultural irrigation.

Nevertheless, an Amendment to the MWP was presented in 2004 and the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant was proposed. Consultants of the same firms now promoted the new version, staff made presentations at the mall (the same staff who earlier swore by the MWP 2002). Politicians embraced this new version as well and the DCWTP was born for almost $30 M.

One thing was missing: there were no plans provided as to what will happen next. When asked why they built this huge treatment plant at DC when we only needed a very small amount of water for domestic use the response was: we got grants for treatment plants but we did not get grants for separation. 

This is where the problem lies. We had no reasonable idea what will happen with this enormous plant (someone referred to it as a white elephant) when we continued with our plans. In fact, we are still in the planning process ten years later. But the albatross around the planners neck was that $30 million investment called DCWTP. It had to be incorporated into the new plans otherwise we would have had difficulties explaining the wasted expenditures.

As it is, we are losing a significant value of the plant as the new plan only requires much smaller volume of the treated (clarified) water for future filtration (110 cubic meters per day versus the maximum capability of the plant at 162cubic meters per day).

An added "benefit" of the clarification pant is the high annual clarification costs: in 2012 the cost was about $2.2 M. Most of the so clarified water was used for agricultural irrigation.

It would have been nice to share the costs with future users but of the $66 M expenditures to date $12.6 M came out directly from the pockets of current users as we had to pay about $1.4 M annually over and above the Government grants and the taxpayer approved $35 M. That is a huge burden. Used for servicing a loan it could have serviced an additional $12 M loan for MWP purposes. Instead it was spent never to be shared with future taxpayers.

As for keeping water rates low just check out the cost increases over the years as compared to the promised increases in 2004.



 

2004 referendum promises    

           

Actual water rate increases

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