Peer review of plan request flushed

by Roger Knox - Vernon Morning Star posted Jul 24, 2016 at 1:00 AM

Greater Vernon Water’s 2012 master water plan will not be reviewed by an independent engineer. Regional District of North Okanagan directors voted almost unanimously with a Greater Vernon Water Advisory Committee recommendation not to hire an independent engineer to conduct a peer review as requested by the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. RDNO directors voted in favour of nine recommendations from the advisory committee, including a scheduled review of the MWP be completed every five-to-10 years or prior to the construction of any significant capital project. The lone dissenter was alternate Vernon director Scott Anderson. “Asking for a peer review is not way out there in left field, it’s something that’s a fairly standard operating procedure,” said Anderson. “With a small investment in a peer review, we’ll potentially save money, gain credibility with the public and do what’s actually expected.” But Vernon director Juliette Cunningham said a review of the plan will take place “each and every time a major investment to the plan happens.” A 2014 referendum to borrow up to $70 million to undertake Phase 1 projects identified in trhe plan failed, which led to the creation of a stakeholder advisory committee to review the MWP. “I’ve sat at every stakeholder meeting with people representing commercial, agricultural, residential and industrial interests,” said Cunningham. “Part of that committee is made up of at least three engineers. “A tremendous amount of work has already been done.” The stakeholder advisory group voted in May to recommend to Greater Vernon Water that Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake be maintained as drinking water sources and that two treatment plants remain. It also wants partial separation of agricultural land from treated water primarily in eastern Coldstream. GVAC is also being urged to proceed with filtration at the Mission Hill treatment plant before the Duteau Creek facility. RDNO directors agreed to the recommendations Wednesday. The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan had pushed for a peer review of the water plan, but that request was denied by the stakeholders. The full scope of the master water plan is about $108 million over 50 years but the cost could depend on factors such as government grants and filtration being deferred or not occurring at Duteau. While another referendum is possible, funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue.
========
Don Quixote Comments :
The "recommended chosen" option 2 By SAC Committee is a $111 million dollar expenditure that should have a peer review or an engineering & operational and financing review before it is reincorporated into the master water plan for IHA blessing and approval.

We originally managed to get a Peer Review of Duteau Filtration and that $30,000 study concluded that the cost of this method could reduce the Filtration Costs at Duteau from the $26.5 million Filtration in Option 2 (http://www.rdno.ca/docs/TM10_Financial_Plan_FINAL.pdf ) to between $8 and $10 million for the ultraviolet and scrubbing method as recommended in this peer review. (if approved by IHA)

I asked for a peer review before the last election and referendum and still feel that when we are requiring a $111 million expenditure ( with $26.5 for Duteau Filtration and $30 million for mission Hill Filtration )(in 2022) that we pursue a professional review.
==========
http://vernonblog.blogspot.ca/2016/07/recommendation-not-to-proceed-with.html

PEER REVIEW OF Duteau Filtration:

http://www.rdno.ca/index.php/services/engineering/water/greater-vernon-water/master-water-plan

• AECOM Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant – Filtration Pilot Testing Report (October 2014)
• Stantec Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant – Filtration Pilot Testing Report Peer Review Memo (March 12, 2015)

==========
2015 GVW Annual Water Report: http://www.rdno.ca/docs/2015_GVW__Annual_Rpt.pdf

GVAC Special Meeting Wednesday at 4 PM

https://rdno.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=178
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
GREATER VERNON ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:00 pm AGENDA
===========
Excerpts of first 3 recommendations below:
1. Greater Vernon Water (GVW) Strategic Plan for Rates and Fees Structure Workshop – Questions & Answers - Report dated June 20, 2016 RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 That the requested information from the May 26, 2016 Special Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting regarding the Greater Vernon Water (GVW) Strategic Plan for Rates and Fees Structure Workshop be received for information and discussion at the July 21, 2016 Special Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting.
2. Financial Options and Considerations – Greater Vernon Water Master Water Plan - Presentation from the April 14, 2016 GVW 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting FOR DISCUSSION Page 14
3. 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Stakeholder Advisory Committee Statements and Recommendations - Report dated May 2016
RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 22 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors the request from the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to hire an independent engineering consultant to undertake a peer Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Agenda – Regular - Special - 2 - June 29, 2016 review of the 2012 Master Water Plan not go forward.

Water report causes debate to swell

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Jun 12, 2016 at 6:00 AM
Sharp divisions remain over Greater Vernon’s water system. On Thursday, the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee received the final report from the stakeholder committee looking into the future of the master water plan. Director Gyula Kiss took direct aim at the stakeholder committee, saying it did not consider broad-based information. “The only information they received came from staff and consultants and the staff and consulted support the current master water plan,” he said. That comment brought a response from Juliette Cunningham, GVAC chairperson and stakeholder committee member. “I take exception to you challenging that process,” she said. “It was a long process. Thoughtful work was done by some intelligent individuals.” Cunningham also insists the discussion was extensive. “There was a member of the committee that put forward his views and when a vote was called, it did not pass,” she said. David Sewell, Regional District of North Okanagan chief executive officer, defended the role of staff. “Staff works to provide information in an unbiased manner and it takes the direction of this committee (GVAC),” he said. When it came time to receive the stakeholder report for information, Kiss did not raise his hand as opposed. Cunningham tried to clarify Kiss’ vote, but did not get a response. “I guess he’s in favour,” she said.The next step is for GVAC to consider the stakeholder committee’s recommendations, including maintaining two water sources and two treatment facilities.

GVAC Meeting Next Thursday June 9

Greater Vernon Advisory Committee

Thursday, June 9, 2016 - 8:00 am

• Agenda

=======
Items of Interest:
2. 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report to the
Greater Vernon Advisory Committee
− Report dated May 2016
RECOMMENDATION 5 *Report is between Page 28 and 29 for clean copy
That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan
Stakeholder Advisory Committee the “2012 Master Water Plan Review – Stakeholder
Advisory Committee Report” dated May 2016 be received for information; and further,
That the statements and recommendations included in the “2012 Master Water Plan
Review – Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report” be individually considered by the
Greater Vernon Advisory Committee in their review of the 2012 Master Water Plan.
-------------
3. Flooding Mitigation for the Duteau Creek Reservoirs
At the Board of Directors Meeting held on May 18, 2016 the following resolution was
carried:
That the matter of the letter received from the Village of Lumby dated May 4, 2016 re:
Flood Mitigation for the Duteau Creek Reservoirs be deferred to the Greater Vernon
Advisory Committee; and further,
That staff be directed to provide a staff report with regard to the matters contained in
the letter received from the Village of Lumby dated May 4, 2016 re: Flood Mitigation
for the Duteau Creek Reservoirs.
− Staff report dated May 18, 2016 including Letter dated May 4, 2016 from the Village
of Lumby re: Flood Mitigation for the Duteau Creek Reservoirs
RECOMMENDATION 6 Page 29
That the report dated May 18, 2016 from the General Manager, Engineering regarding
flooding concerns in Lumby be received for information.

Greater Vernon water plan moves ahead

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted May 18, 2016 at 12:00 PM— updated May 18, 2016 at 1:18 PM
Greater Vernon's master water plan has overcome a major hurdle. On Wednesday, members of a stakeholders advisory committee unanimously agreed to recommended a direction on the master water plan to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee. "It's the most viable option," said Monique Hubbs-Michiel,a SAC member. The group has recommended that Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake be maintained as drinking water sources and that two treatment plants remain. It also wants partial separation of agricultural land from treated water primarily in eastern Coldstream. GVAC is also being urged to proceed with filtration at the Mission Hill treatment plant before the Duteau Creek facility. Terry Mooney, a SAC member, levelled criticism at the process Wednesday but ultimately he raised his hand in favour of the final recommendation. "There's no point in opposing it because the majority of the committee decided otherwise," said Mooney, who represented Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. "I didn't achieve 100 per cent of the objectives my group wanted, but it's headed in the right direction." Mooney is pleased there will be a role for the public as the master water plan unfolds. The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan had pushed for a peer review of the water plan, but that request was denied by the SAC. "I've looked through all of the numbers and I don't see anyone magically coming up with another conclusion," said Don Gibbs, SAC member. The full scope of the master water plan is about $108 million over 50 years but the cost could depend on factors such as government grants and filtration being deferred or not occurring at Duteau. While a referendum is possible, funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue. The SAC recommendation will now go to GVAC for consideration and finally to the Regional District of North Okanagan board. Jim Garlick, SAC chairperson, is confident that the process will continue. "We need to make some decisions and move on. It will never be perfect but it will be an improvement," he said.
========
Water Review Makes 18 Recommendations
Posted on 5/18/2016 5:09 PM by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
Greater Vernon's master water plan has got unanimous support as it moves to the next step. A stakeholders advisory committee has made 18 recommendations including maintaining Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake as water sources, with two treatment facilities. Regional District of North Okanagan Engineering G-M Dale McTaggart says the committee is also recommending partial separation of the farming and domestic water supplies, mostly in east Coldstream. "And then the pipe for separation be designed for full separation in the future." McTaggart says one suggested change would see filtration considered for the Mission Hill Treatment Plant, before Duteau Creek. "Mission Hill services 80 percent of the public with potable water, so why not put the money into filtration and get the cleanest water to 80% of the people?," McTaggart tells Kiss FM. Terry Mooney from the Group Citizens For Change, supported the recommendations, despite some reservations. "I'm satisfied to a point that we have succeeded in changing the direction of the master water plan in respect to now it's going to be involved with separation." Mooney gives the review's findings a passing grade."I would say, on a scale of one to ten, probably about a 6." Mooney also likes the idea for more public input into the plan in the future. "Provisions are being made for ongoing public representation. The form that will take has yet to be decided." The recommendations will next be considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

Stakeholder Advisory Committee wraps up their review of the 2012 Greater Vernon Master Water Plan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: May 17, 2016
MEDIA CONTACT: Dale McTaggart, General Manager, Engineering
TELEPHONE: 250-550-3700
_____________________________________________________________________

Stakeholder Advisory Committee wraps up their review of the 2012 Greater Vernon
Master Water Plan

The 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee (Stakeholder Committee) has completed their review of the 2012 Greater Vernon Water - Master Water Plan (Plan), and will be finalizing a report that summarizes their discussions and recommendations at their upcoming meeting on Wednesday.

The Stakeholder Committee was appointed by the Regional District Board of Directors in September 2015 in response to community concerns that arose following an unsuccessful borrowing referendum in 2014. The referendum was held to provide the Regional District with the authority to borrow all of the necessary money ($70 million) to complete the priority projects that were identified in the adopted Plan. The Plan, which was completed in 2012 under order from Interior Health, considered numerous options to meet Interior Health’s multiple barrier approach to achieving the key treatment objectives for surface water and the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.

The Stakeholder Committee was made up of a panel of 14 Greater Vernon Water customers designed to be representative of the Greater Vernon community. The Committee members, which include agricultural, residential, commercial, institutional and industrial water users, as well as developers and representation of the public stakeholder group, Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, met a total of 11 times between October 2015 and April 2016.

The main purpose of the Stakeholder Committee was to provide input on options for the future improvements to the Greater Vernon Water System. The Stakeholder Committee was also given the following roles and responsibilities:
1. reviewing the background information and final Plan and confirming that the recommended direction in the Plan corresponds with stakeholder and community perspectives;
2. based on the review above, developing recommendations to improve the Plan, which would then be forwarded for the Regional District’s consideration;
3. ensuring that all potential options to improve the Greater Vernon Water system had been adequately considered;
4. assisting the Regional District with public communication and education related to the Plan; and
5. communicating with major water users about the water treatment and separation goals and their role in implementing the Plan.

The Stakeholder Committee meetings were designed to provide the members with the opportunity to learn about the Plan in detail, ask questions, consider alternatives, and ultimately develop recommendations that would be forwarded to the Regional District for consideration. At each meeting, independent technical consultants were brought in to present information to the Stakeholder Committee and answer any questions. Many of the Stakeholder Committee members also attended tours of the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plan and the Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant as part of their educational process.

With a mission to provide productive comments and recommendations to the Regional District, the Stakeholder Committee has worked hard to get to this point, where they have completed their review and have a draft summary report with recommendations. “The Stakeholder Committee members demonstrated a significant commitment to serving their community,” said Regional District Director and Stakeholder Committee Chair, Jim Garlick. “This Committee required a lot of time from its members for additional research and review, and each member came prepared to listen, learn and contribute. On behalf of the Regional District, I really want to thank the members for all of the hard work that they put in. The draft summary report is extensive and thoughtful, and really reflects the exceptional work that this group put in as representatives of their community.”

The Stakeholder Committee is scheduled to meet one final time on Wednesday, May 18th to finalize their report and recommendations to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee (GVAC). GVAC will then consider the recommendations at a future meeting and will determine the next steps as the Regional District moves forward.

For further information, please call 250.550.3700.
===========
For link to report see:
http://vernonblog.blogspot.ca/2016/05/greater-vernon-water-2012-master-water.html
RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 5
That it be recommended to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee the 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Draft Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report dated May 2016 be received for information; and further,
That the following statements and recommendations as forwarded by the Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee be individually considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee in their review of the 2012 Master

GREATER VERNON WATER 2012 MASTER WATER PLAN STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 am at the Regional District of North Okanagan, Boardroom

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - 10:00 am
Agenda

1. 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Draft Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report
to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee
− Staff report dated May 2016
RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 5
That it be recommended to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee the 2012 Master  Water Plan Review – Draft Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report dated May 2016 be received for information; and further,
That the following statements and recommendations as forwarded by the Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee be individually considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee in their review of the 2012 Master Water Plan:
I. That the request from the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to hire an independent engineering consultant to undertake a peer review of the 2012 Master Water Plan be postponed pending review of the 2012 Master Water Plan by the Committee. (Note, this recommendation was later addressed in recommendations XI, XII and XIII below).
II. That any option that includes the DCWTP as a potable water source will examine using UV and air scrubbing in the DCWTP Reservoir to support a filtration exclusion application.
III. That the final Master Water Plan option provide for the use of two water sources and two water treatment plants.
IV. That Options 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 be removed from the Options list based on the highest capital cost with lowest non-cost benefit ratio and not be considered in the Financial Planning Stage for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee review of the Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan.
V. That the SAC is satisfied that all Options contained in TM9 (subject to variations) have adequately considered all feasible options available to meet Ministry of Health standards.
VI. That the staging of the treatment plants be changed so that MHWTP filtration is constructed first, noting that a filtration exclusion at DCWTP may be successful.
VII. That [regardless of the Option preferred, except Option 1] any separation should include sizing of the irrigation transmission main to allow for continued separation of domestic and irrigation water supplies and enable full separation in the future.
VIII. That alternative sources for irrigation be explored fully with the objective of reducing capital and operation costs.
IX. That a scheduled review of the MWP be completed every 5 - 10 years or prior to the construction of any significant capital project.
X. That the following points presented by the General Manager, Finance be considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee when finalizing the financial strategy of the Master Water Plan:
− Finalize the Option, then develop a financial strategy.
− Use existing reserves as a funding source in plan.
− Use grants as a funding source in plan.
− Use DCC’s as a funding source in plan.
− Use current revenue as a funding source – balance with renewal projects from year to year.
− Delay timing of major projects, where feasible.
− Increase annual contribution to reserves – balance with annual capital plan from year to year.
XI. That the SAC is satisfied with the level of detail provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XII. That the SAC is satisfied with the engineering analysis provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XIII. That the SAC is satisfied with the cost estimates provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XIV. That the SAC put forth the following three (3) Options to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee for consideration:
a. Option 1 - the option with the lowest financial impact to water users based on the lowest Net Present Value (NPV) with no further separation;
b. Option 2 - the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (NPV) with partial separation; and
c. Option 3 - the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (NPV) that supports full separation.
XV. That the SAC select Option 2 being the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (Net Present Value) with partial separation as their first choice moving forward with the 2012 Master Water Plan.
XVI. That the SAC select Option 1 being the option with the lowest financial impact to water users based on the lowest Net Present Value (NPV) with no further separation as their second choice moving forward with the 2012 Master Water
Plan.

Committee discusses OK Lake options

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Dec 20, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Tapping into a new water source could create challenges in Greater Vernon. Members of the master water plan stakeholders advisory committee were provided with information Thursday about possibly drawing water from Okanagan Lake, something that presently doesn’t occur. “You would have a pump station at the head of the lake and pump all of the way to the Mission Hill treatment plant,” said consultant Brett deWynter. A pump station would be required because Okanagan Lake’s surface elevation is 341.5 metres, which means it is lower than Vernon. “No one has control over what electrical rates will become,” said deWynter of the need for power to pump the water uphill. The present water system is gravity-fed, with Duteau Creek at an elevation of 649.95 metres and Kalamalka Lake at 391.7 metres. Committee member Paul Williamson suggested constructing a treatment plant near Goose Lake that could draw water from Okanagan Lake and service northwest Greater Vernon, Spallumcheen and the Okanagan Indian Reserve. “That’s an option we should definitely look at,” he said. Another concern about switching from the Duteau source to Okanagan Lake is the potential arrival of invasive mussels in the region. The mussels flourish in calcium rich water such as Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes, whereas there are low calcium levels in Duteau Creek. These mussels clog water intake pipes, pumps and boat motors. They also deplete food sources for fish and produce toxins that kill fish and birds and contaminate drinking water. “Putting an intake in at different depths (in the lake) could not work,” said Doug Neden, committee member. The committee was also provided information on water utilities in other local jurisdictions. In Kelowna, about 60,000 people get their water from Okanagan Lake, with the remaining 60,000 served by up to 10 other independent utilities. “It has zero agricultural base,” said deWynter of the City of Kelowna utility from Okanagan Lake. Presently, the City of Kelowna system is not filtrated but that may not be avoidable in the future. “Water rates in Kelowna will go up, they are going up,” said Jim Garlick, committee chairperson, of government regulations. In Penticton, two water sources are used and filtration has been in place since the mid-1990s. “The treatment facility was built with 33 per cent tax dollars and the rest came from elsewhere (senior government),” said deWynter. “Federal government funding is not where it was back in the 1990s.” West Kelowna has two water sources and the treatment technologies vary. “One group of residents pays for filtered water and another group pays for non-filtered water. It’s a legacy of two irrigation districts,” said deWynter. Garlick says the amalgamation of Greater Vernon’s water utilities and system upgrades have been beneficial. “I’m thankful that we have Duteau Creek. We have everyone paying the same rate and people can see through their water,” he said.

Claims of bias refuted

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Nov 29, 2015 at 1:00 AM
A Greater Vernon politician insists that a review of the master water plan isn’t biased. Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan has accused Regional District of North Okanagan staff of interfering in the process during a master water plan stakeholders advisory committee meeting Nov. 19. “They (CCMWP) become as guilty as staff in only wanting one direction,” said Jim Garlick, stakeholders advisory committee chairperson. “Staff raised concerns and our role as a committee is to determine if there are facts to these concerns.” CCMWP says that a Nov. 22 Morning Star article, “clearly points to the need for independent consultation in the stakeholders’ review of the master water plan.” “The reported comments by RDNO staff and Greater Vernon Water management reflect entrenched biases in favor of continuing the present direction of the MWP. To offer reasoned balance, these comments require an alternative perspective unreported at the time,” said Terry Mooney, CCMWP chairperson and stakeholders advisory committee member. “Further, the timing of this public commentary by RDNO staff and GVW management on these matters is inappropriate, given that these topics are currently under consideration by the duly selected stakeholders’ advisory committee in its review of the MWP.” CCMWP has previously called for an independent review of the water plan. “I don’t know who they think this independent body is. We already have engineers involved. The people on the SAC say they have trust in these people,” said Garlick. While RDNO staff say there haven’t been studies done on Okanagan Lake water quality, CCMWP insists that’s not the case. “While an update to the 135-page study of water quality objectives in Okanagan Lake is called for, this study released in 2005, supports, with appropriate management, the continued development of Okanagan Lake for drinking water, and other domestic uses as a viable alternative,” said Mooney. “This study includes an analysis of water quality in the northern arm.” RDNO’s Greater Vernon Advisory Committee began a review of the master water plan after a referendum to borrow $70 million was turned down by residents.

OK source includes hurdles

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Nov 22, 2015 at 1:00 AM— updated Nov 22, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Okanagan Lake may not necessarily be the answer to Greater Vernon’s water demands. Members of the master water plan stakeholders advisory committee were told Thursday that costly treatment processes will still be needed if the Okanagan Lake source is tapped. “It will not likely be just chlorination and ultraviolet. There will be treatment,” said Dale McTaggart, Regional District of North Okanagan’s general manager of engineering. While communities in the central and southern parts of the valley use Okanagan Lake for water, McTaggart says there are no scientific studies on water quality in the northern arm. One possibility from using Okanagan Lake is trihalomethanes, a group of compounds that can form when the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water reacts with naturally occurring organic matter (decaying leaves and vegetation), according to Health Canada. To avoid such situations, Zee Marcolin, Greater Vernon Water manager, says water pipes would have to be extended far out into the lake’s main arm and such a proposition could be expensive for the utility. The other issue is that GVW is running into challenges getting provincial approval to access water from Okanagan Lake. “It’s been a year-and-a-half and they haven’t even come to the table provincially,” said Marcolin of trying to obtain a water license. “We’re in a holding pattern.” One possible reason for the hold-up is that Greater Vernon may not need Okanagan Lake water for 50 years. “It’s a low priority for them (province) because it’s not something you need right now,” said Rod MacLean, with Associated Engineering. It was also suggested that provincial departments are short-staffed and facing demands from communities with immediate water issues. While there have been suggestions of abandoning Duteau Creek for domestic use, Marcolin says it could still be needed if quagga and zebra mussels show up in Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes. “With Kal Lake, the risk is high because of very high calcium levels. It’s the perfect environment (for the invasive species),” she said, adding that Duteau Creek has low calcium levels so its risk is reduced. These mussels clog water intake pipes, pumps and boat motors. They also deplete food sources for fish and produce toxins that kill fish and birds and contaminate drinking water.

Authority defends stance over water

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Oct 25, 2015 at 1:00 AM
The Interior Health Authority insists it’s not the bad guy when it comes to Greater Vernon’s costly water challenges. Members of the master water plan stakeholder advisory committee were told Thursday that the Ministry of Health, not IHA, sets standards for water protection. “We don’t make this stuff up,” said Roger Parsonage, regional director of health protection, adding that regulations are based on national and international guidelines. “They are not new standards imposed on B.C.”And while the timeline for infrastructure upgrades can be discussed, Parsonage says IHA doesn’t force certain upgrades. “IH won’t tell water suppliers what technology it needs to use to meet a treatment objective.” However, Parsonage says there are implications if water quality standards are not met as health risks can be created. Questions arose as to why Greater Vernon must pursue filtration when Kelowna doesn’t. Parsonage says Kelowna’s domestic utility from Okanagan Lake qualifies for filtration deferral because protection criteria is being met but that situation could change in the future. “We are trying to balance our responsibilities to public health with our obligation to be balanced and fair to the agencies (utilities),” he said, adding that specific situations within utilities will be considered. The goal, he added, is to work with water suppliers and a capital works will not be ordered as long as the utility is working towards a plan. Most system upgrades are costly, but Parsonage says utilities must plan for improvements irrespective of possibly receiving government grants. “We regularly talk to the Ministry of Community Development about the need for grant funding for water and we regularly write letters of support for grant funding.”

Review Knee Deep In Water System

Posted on 10/23/2015 by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
It's like Water 101 for the committee reviewing Greater Vernon's master water plan.The 18 member stakeholders advisory committee (SAC) is using its first few meetings to learn about the local water system, and vice chair Juliette Cunningham says much of it has been technical. "What's apparent is that the general public is getting an idea of how complicated this has been in terms of Greater Vernon Water and our decisions," she tells Kiss FM.The committee -- which is made up of volunteer reps from residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water users -- plans to meet until next spring to come up with recommendations on the future direction of the water plan.On Thursday, the group heard from Interior Health's Regional Director for Health Protection, Roger Parsonage, who outlined how they come up with the safety requirements for water systems."We don't just make this stuff up," said Parsonage.He says the requirements come from BC's Health Ministry, and are based on national and international standards. Cunningham says Interior Health is no longer demanding costly upgrades to the local system, at least not right away., which is a change from a year or so ago. "What's happened since that time is Interior health has backed off a bit, as long as we are showing continued improvement toward the ultimate goal." The committee also heard from the three engineering firms that updated the master water plan in 2012. "Our report is very boring and fact-based. We didn't pass any political judgements. We stick to the facts," said Brett deWynter, engineer from Associated Engineering. Meantime, the SAC has decided it will need more meetings to get its job done. The group had planned to meet once a month, but will hold two meetings in December (3 and 17) to get through all the technical issues being reviewed.

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 8:00 am
Agenda (22 pages)

Water fight breaks out over plan

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Oct 9, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Frustration levels over the future of water is boiling over among politicians. Director Jim Garlick criticized some of his colleagues during back and forth on the master water plan at Thursday’s Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting. “Everyone has to act like adults and not be silly — all of us,” he said. That comment garnered support from chairperson Juliette Cunningham. “I couldn’t have said it better,” she said. Director Gyula Kiss, who has been critical of the master water plan, was not impressed with Garlick. “He’s a teacher and I guess he think he’s talking to kids,” said Kiss after the meeting. “I’m bringing up issues as a person who reads the master water plan and wants to bring forward reasonable options. When I make comments, I see the sneers.” Garlick’s comments were made just after director Bob Spiers had proposed a motion to budget funds for an independent review of the MWP. “If he was suggesting I was being silly, I will take it with a grain of salt. I have no idea of what he was talking about,” said Spiers. The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan asked for an independent engineering consultant to be hired but GVAC voted Thursday to defer a decision until the MWP has been reviewed by the stakeholder advisory committee. When asked to clarify his statement, Garlick says there is a need for everyone at the table to look at how to handle the review process. “If you have concerns, bring them forward. Don’t just keep dragging them out,” he said. “If we operate that way, we will keep spinning our wheels. I don’t like to see the bickering back and forth.” Recognizing Kiss’ concerns about the MWP, Garlick urged him to bring questions forward but to let the process proceed. “What we need to do is get information and not have debates on this plan and that plan,” said Garlick.
--------------
Director Advises Colleagues To 'Act Like Adults'
Posted on 10/9/2015 by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
A local politician is concerned too much debate will bog down the master water plan review. Jim Garlick, who is Coldstream mayor, and vice chair of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee (GVAC) told his fellow directors Thursday, they have "to start acting like adults, and not be silly" when it comes to the review. "If we have concerns, bring those forward, deal with them at the committee and board levels, but don't keep dragging it out. Bring the concerns forward, and then we will deal with them," says Garlick. Garlick was concerned with a motion from director Bob Spiers to budget up to $80,000 for the possibility of hiring an independent consultant for the review. "I don't want to have this as a debate about one plan or another. Let's go forward and start building a plan and not bring bickering into it, because I don't see that as helpful," Garlick adds. Spiers didn't think the remark was directed at him. "If it was, I don't consider anything that I have done silly or childish. Therefore I will continue to act as I have always done, if I see something that has to be addressed," Spiers said after the meeting. Spiers later withdrew the motion, but will bring it up again at a special budget meeting Oct. 29th.

Water comparisons doused

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Oct 4, 2015 at 1:00 AM
A group scrutinizing Greater Vernon’s water utility is being urged to look beyond perceptions. The master water plan stakeholder advisory committee held its inaugural session Thursday and one of the members raised a common public comment that local water rates are higher than in other communities. “Being compared to Penticton and Kelowna is comparing apples to oranges,” said Zee Marcolin, utility manager for the Regional District of North Okanagan. “Kelowna has five utilities and the City of Kelowna’s utility covers a compact area and only has domestic customers and not agriculture.” Besides the City of Kelowna’s water utility, which draws from Okanagan Lake, the rest of that community is served by irrigation districts, which use other water sources, such as creeks. “There isn’t just one utility called the Kelowna utility,” said Jim Garlick, SAC chairperson and Coldstream mayor. The cost of conforming to provincial water quality regulations is an issue in Kelowna just as it is in Greater Vernon. “They (irrigation districts) are facing challenges because they are fragmented,” said Garlick. In Kelowna, Mayor Colin Basran has expressed concerns about multiple water improvement districts and the ability to pay for improvements. As a result, representatives from the Black Mountain Irrigation District, Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District, Rutland Waterworks and South East Kelowna Irrigation District recently issued a statement. “While the idea of one grand interconnected utility may sound appealing there are realistic technical challenges with this notion. With different sources and water qualities within the five districts, would those in a district with better water quality be willing to sacrifice their good water and have water from a utility with lesser quality water now being delivered to their homes and businesses?” they stated. After years of discussions, Vernon and Coldstream’s municipal utilities merged with the former Vernon Irrigation District in 2002 to form a single entity. “Greater Vernon Water is the third largest utility in B.C. by volume,” said Marcolin. “We are one of the few regional systems.” Greater Vernon Water serves about 53,000 people, has 83 water licenses, 700 kilometres of pipe and two treatment plants. Its summer flow is 260 megalitres of water a day.

Independent review stalled for Greater Vernon water plan

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Oct 1, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Calls for independent scrutiny of Greater Vernon’s water system have been stalled. The master water plan stakeholder advisory committee recommended Thursday to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee that the request for an independent engineering consultant be postponed pending review of the 2012 plan by the stakeholders group. “It’s not necessary until we understand the plan better,” said Paul Williamson, SAC member. The request for an independent consultant had come from the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. However, Williamson, who made the motion to defer the request, stated that bringing a consultant on board now could be costly and add complexities to the discussion. Opposition to the motion came from Terry Mooney, a SAC member and chairperson of the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. “The idea behind the request is that a fresh new look of the plan is required,” said Mooney, adding that 1,000 people have signed a petition in favour of a review. The stakeholder advisory committee was formed after a majority of Greater Vernon residents voted against borrowing $70 million for the plan in 2014. Mooney says the process that led to the failed referendum must be avoided. “None of us are an expert on any of these areas. I would not want to see the public disenfranchised from an independent set of eyes and ears,” he said. “We need advice along the way to discuss technical data.” Other SAC members, though, pointed out that a peer review of the plan could occur in the future. “At some stage it may be appropriate to say we hit a dam in moving this forward,” said Robert Evans. Jim Garlick, Coldstream mayor and SAC chairperson, is hopeful the 18 committee members will be able to be thorough in their deliberations. “It will all be a fresh, new look because we have new people asking questions,” he said. Thursday was the inaugural gathering of the SAC and members are trying to familiarize themselves with Greater Vernon’s water system. Numerous requests were made for information, including the price of operating the Kalamalka Lake and Duteau Creek sources. “On the minds of people I talk to, it’s the cost,” said member Ray Foisy. Also on Thursday, the committee decided that it wants to hear from a representative of the consulting engineering technical group that developed the 2012 master water plan.
------------------
Water Review Consultant Postponed
Posted on 10/1/2015 by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM

Already some disagreement after the first meeting of the group looking into Greater Vernon's master water plan. A stakeholders advisory committee is recommending a request to use an independent consultant during the process be postponed, possibly until the end of the review. "It's not necessary until we known more about the costs. It will just drive up the costs," says committee member Paul Williamson. A vote on the motion had two committee members opposed. One of them was Terry Mooney from the group Citizens For Change. He says an outside expert could help the committee members with all the technical data, and would provide a different opinion to just getting the information from regional district staff. "That's not what the public wants. The public wants a fresh, new look at the master water plan, "Mooney tells Kiss FM. Committee chair and Coldstream Mayor Jim Garlick says it was felt adding a consultant at this point could be costly and unnecessary . "There are questions, but I can ask them of staff and educate myself with the documents that exist. And if down the line, I have more detailed questions then we're maybe going to need to bring somebody in," says Garlick. The recommendation will next go to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee October 8th who will discuss if an independent consultant is needed. The 18 person volunteer committee, which is made up of residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial water users, will meet once a month until next March and make recommendations to GVAC. Eight of the members represent the biggest water users, residential, while commercial/industry reps include Sleeman Breweries, Tekmar, Vernon Lodge, Wesbild Holdings, Noric House, Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce, Vernon Jubilee Hospital and the Vernon School District. The other two members are Garlick and GVAC chair Juliette Cunningham. The committee will next meet Oct 22 at the RDNO office, with all meetings open to the public.

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 8:00 am
Agenda  (9 PAGES)
-------------------------

2012 Master Water Plan

Technical Memorandums

TM1 Domestic & Agricultural Water Demand Forecast
TM2 Evaluation of Water Supply Source
TM3 Source Storage and Supply
TM4 Domestic Water System Analysis
TM5 Independent Agricultural System
TM6 Water Conservation Strategies
TM7 Water Treatment
TM8 GVW Financial Issues and Principles to Support the Master Water Plan
TM9 System Separation Option Analysis
TM10 Financial Plan

Deadline Day For Water Review

Posted on 8/24/2015 by Pete McIntyre 107.5 Kissfm
A review of Greater Vernon's master water plan will get underway this fall, and today is the deadline for the public to apply to be part of that. A stakeholders advisory committee will include 14 members including four from the residential sector, two from agriculture, and two from commercial. Greater Vernon Advisory Committee chair Juliette Cunningham says as of last week, 18 people had applied for the volunteer positions. She says the review -- which could take six months and involves monthly meetings -- will include a lot of technical information. "Most of (the committee members) won't be engineers, so that's the challenge that we have, to sort through all of that, and at the end of it, make the best decision," says Cunningham. The review will determine if a new direction is needed for the water plan. A failed water referendum last November for six water projects, led to the re-evaluation. "The awareness has been raised significantly, so I'm glad to see there's an interest because at the end of it, we need the buy-in from our stakeholders," adds Cunningham. The other members of the committee will include one rep from GVAC, two from non domestic that provides service such as the hospital, one from major industrial, one from the developer class, and one from a local service group. Check www.rdno.ca/water to find an application form.