As a member of the Greater Vernon Stakeholder Advisory Committee, I was a bit taken aback to read that it was suggested we had “rubber stamped” the recommendations of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee’s master water plan.
Following the failed $70 million referendum on the 2012 MWP, GVAC and the Regional District of North Okanagan decided to form a stakeholder advisory committee to perform an independent review of all options considered in the MWP, as opposed to bearing the cost of yet another set of plans and engineers.
This SAC was made up of representatives from the business community, agriculture and the hospital. In addition, several residential representatives were on board, including some with engineering backgrounds. Years of experience was brought to the table with this committee, a representation of Greater Vernon.
The committee has met for the past eight months, often as much as three times a month. We have had the benefit of engineers taking us through each option of the MWP, in addition to discussing the viability of new options. We also had presentations from the financial officers involved in the MWP, furthering our understanding of the financial process with respect to costs, grants and future rates.
In addition, members of Interior Health educated us all on the legislation regarding our water quality and the required steps still needed to achieve that quality.
Our committee worked as one unit and in small groups. We asked many questions and, yes, had more than one heated debate regarding what would be the most viable option for the MWP. The majority of us came to this committee with open minds, hoping to understand the MWP in its entirety and to ensure RDNO chooses the most viable and cost-effective water plan for all of its users, including business, agriculture and residential.
In eight months of going through virtually the same process GVAC went through in rating the various MWP options, this committee, with totally different backgrounds, has also recommended the same option for the MWP.
Without going into the details of the process, this option was recommended for a number of reasons. Total separation is cost prohibitive, with those options costing upwards of $50 million more than the recommended option. While applied for, RDNO does not actually have the necessary water licenses on Okanagan Lake. The MWP must address our needs now and the foreseeable future and cannot base a MWP on an option relying on a water source which we don’t have adequate water licences for. The option we recommended (also in 2012 MWP) has partial separation with the potential to fully separate the systems if that avenue ever becomes viable cost wise. In addition, the recommended option has the ability to incorporate less costly treatment options should they become acceptable. This option also has the highest benefit to cost based on life cycle costs.
Two treatment facilities allows for greater redundancy and ensures our area can avoid any boil water advisories and meet the required, by law, water quality standards of Interior Health.
So, yes, this committee did give our stamp, which was one of approval and not rubber.
Monique Hubbs-Michiel
Vernon
