I’ve followed the debate about our water supply and its costs with great interest. While I very much respect the concerns expressed in this paper, I think many people in Vernon are missing some of the critical issues. So I’m going to jump in at the proverbial deep end.
First, our most critical issue is to ensure an adequate and clean supply of fresh water as we face declining snowpack, possibly lower rainfall and hotter summers due to global warming. Whether we like it or not, our current system is designed to be fed by an adequate snowpack that melts slowly between April and June. This is at risk of becoming a memory, and we will face increased costs to re-jig the system to deal with changing conditions, regardless if we think our current water bill is too high.
Second, many letter writers have taken Interior Health to task for insisting on more stringent quality standards. I don’t think Interior Health is the bad guy it’s made out to be. But its PR department seems to be asleep at the switch.
I attended a couple of the open houses last year when the master water plan was discussed and it was made quite clear that the new standards are in fact national standards, and B.C. is dragging its feet to deploy them compared to many other provinces. The new standards were a result of the Walkerton disaster in Ontario in 2000. There is much online material about the subject.
Third, we need to do a better job of conserving water as we use more per capita than pretty well any other region of Canada and we also live in one of Canada’s hottest and driest areas. For example, we need to ban lawn irrigation when weather conditions are too hot and sunny and use our bylaw officers to enforce these regulations rather than persecuting folks downtown whose parking meters have run out.
Similarly, we need to look at agricultural water costs. An article I just read from the University of Manitoba suggested that evaporation losses from overhead irrigation sprays in hot and sunny weather can range from 15 to 45 per cent.
If local farmers can afford to waste this percentage of water for several hours a day in summer, it suggests that the cost of our irrigation water is too low or water officials don’t actually want farmers to conserve water. I’m confused about our intended water policy for agriculture as there are frequent calls for conservation but they are not backed up by billing changes to actually encourage behaviour changes.
If I was a farmer, I’d see no reason to shut off the spigot when it’s hot and sunny in the afternoon.
So water officials and council members, is there or isn’t there a consumption concern?
Finally, there is the issue of cost. We need to look at the cost per litre of treated water that comes out of our entire system. Not what you are billed, but what it costs the water utility to deliver it to your house through the pipes. If that’s in line with costs in similar communities in our region then we are doing fine. If it’s way over then we do have a problem.
Whether or not we choose to bill all of the cost through water meter bills or as a mix of property taxes and water bills is then a political decision. I agree some historic decisions were made that seem to increase costs, such as using treated water for farm irrigation, but I understand that decision was made decades ago when the Grey Canal was retired. The cost to twin pipes to undo that misguided decision will cost many millions. The defeated master water plan recommended a gradual approach to tackling the problem.
It would be nice to see some real facts come out from our water utility and council on this subject so we can vote based on facts rather than opinions.
I fear that this letter may have contributed to the hot air in the valley and just helped to evaporate more precious water.
Joking aside, we need to do a better job of stewardship of the land and resources for our children and their children.
One does wonder what the mayor and his counterparts from BX and Coldstream are doing about this. The silence is deafening.
Ritchie Leslie
Vernon
