What’s to talk about?
Ron Bolin: Jan. 25, 2012
During Monday’s (Jan.23, 2012) Council meeting a significant discussion almost took place regarding the expenditure of up to $560,000 for Preliminary Engineering on the South Fork II Dam. The discussion which almost took place began when Councillor Bestwick asked whether we have examined the alternatives to a very costly dam project which is predicated on a population increase to 100,000 in the next ten years and a total expenditure of some $70 million dollars to meet the resultant water needs. Almost before the issue could be raised, Councillor Brennan called a point of order indicating, as far as I was able to decipher, that Council was no place to discuss such issues: that once in Council, Councillors are to either raise their hand yea, or raise it nay. This is a pattern with which those of us who view Council are all too familiar. Again, as far as I was able to tell, the matter of the point of order was never settled, so the principle involved was not made manifest, but the discussion fizzled at this juncture.
The real point to be made here is that if such matters are not to be discussed in Council before the public, when are they supposed to take place and what is the public’s role in such discussions? Obvious alternatives to spending $70 million on a new dam are to further reduce per capita water use; to limit population growth through land controls, a method often used in tourist communities as we seem to strive to be; or to seek alternative sources. While I do not represent that no alternatives have been examined, I suggest that the public is not aware that such growth and the path that we are on currently will cost the city more than one year’s total property tax income. And where do Development Cost Charges (DCCs) fit in?
And most importantly, if Council is not the place for such discussions, then where is the place and when is the time for them?
I end by noting that the land under study in the up to $560,000 is not owned by the City and thus the results of the study could prove to be of little or no use. I am informed that we could perhaps, under the Water Act, be able to expropriate it at fair market value. What is that fair market value? What is it now? What will it be after the study? Seems we ought to be looking a few steps ahead.
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
A new dam has been the monster hiding in the shadows for some time.
A couple of points to consider.
I doubt there is any chance whatsoever that a dam can be built for $75 million.
We should not build a dam without considering the alternatives.
I would think they are dreaming if they can build a new “earthquake proof” concrete dam for $75M – try more like $300M+ when you consider total costs.
I don’t know what the consultants have told them and I don’t know what the design is but it certainly seems on the light side considering the requirement for a sustainable water supply for the people of Nanaimo.
TB: not sure what you mean by alternatives as the city has engaged a value engineering group to perform that task for them. Seems to me someone has misplaced a decimal or something dramatic like that.
I guess that most of the alternatives might be a bit far-fetched, ie. desalinization, icebergs, ground water aquifer storage or, perhaps less far-fetched, a hook up with the Harmac water supply in a broader based implementation of the emergency link which has been approved.
Do you know what the parameters of “value” were that were used in the study you indicate?
Perhaps the City ‘fathers’ are confusing a earth build dam to an earthquake proof concrete dam?
Apparantly the dam we have would not withstand an earthquake & it’s failure would be devastating all the way to the mouth of the Nanaimo river.
We must also take note that Canadians are water hogs, just as our USA neighbours are.
We use three or four times as much water per capita that Europeans do.
There is nothing like a water meter to curb over use!
Why worry…. since the new dam is only needed to support increased growth, it should be entirely funded by DCC’s….. a special levy should be applied to ALL new subdivisions until the cost of the dam is recovered.
An alternate source of funding would be a 10% roll back on city hall wages for 10 years, that alone would nearly cover the cost.
And what is your best guess about the chances of either of these things happening???
DCC’s never recover the real costs of development.
If the cost of DCC’s were to be realistic the developers would be up in arms.
The last time DCCs were reviewed, the development community fought hard to get the water part of the charges reduced. They succeeded.
Water is ,as we can see, not cheap nor as plentiful as we would assume.
Most, if not all of us, have moved to or built a home where water costs were never properly included in the price.
The age of the subsidized subdivision/ development has to stop.
The City of Nanaimo does not even own the watershed from where we draw our water.
This, amongst other things has left Nanaimo having to spend $millions to treat it’s own water, in part because of poor logging practice in the ‘private’ lands.
Is it not time to stop mortgaging our offsprings income & future so that we can enjoy life?
Had the City purchased the watershed years ago there would be no need for a treatment plant, the CRD purchased the Leech River Watershed to offset the need for a treatment plant.
In answer to this question “The real point to be made here is that if such matters are not to be discussed in Council before the public, when are they supposed to take place and what is the public’s role in such discussions?” posed by Ront. Why In Camera of course:).
Council seems to have no interest in public input as can be seen by the fact they are not willing to take those meetings that under section 90(1) of the community charter “may” be held “IN CAMERA.”
Gordon: Very interesting information. I hadn’t heard about the option of acquiring the watershed, if option it is, in dealing with our water treatment situation. I did find the story at:
http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/timberwest/index.htm
It certainly needs follow up with the city.
Ron
I think it would have been an option a few years ago when we could likely have purchased it fo arounfd the cost of the water treatment plant but my understanding now is that Island Timberlands would be looking at $300 million.
The following responses regarding the question about our options with the new reservoir came promptly from Bill Sims at the City. It was sufficient to settle my concern. Wish the answer had been easily found on the City’s web site.
___________________________________
Hi Mr Bolin,
The information provided was a summary of a number of sources, including CRD’s website; discussions with Metro Vancouver, CRD, VIHA; research into Health Canada & VIHA requirements and direct experience within our own situation; case study review; discussions with counterparts at other BC municipalities.
If I understand correctly, your original question was whether there was an option other than building a filtration plant. Some of the background can be summarized as follows:
In general, Health Canada and the Province state that all surface water should be treated by filtration. They provide for a potential deferral if ALL criteria around water quality are met:
1. Use of a minimum of 2 disinfection steps (usually UV and chlorine)
2. e. coli less than 20 per 100mL in at least 90% of samples
3. Daily source water turbidity are less than 1 NTU 95% of days, and does not exceed 5 NTU more than 2 days in 12 months
4. Watershed control program in place
Most notably, the City does not meet the turbidity criteria, due to the watershed characteristics described below, nor would this change should the City own the watershed. As well, we do not meet the two types of treatment required by VIHA’s regulation (Surface Water Treatment Policy). VIHA made it clear to the City several years ago that we would not meet the criteria to defer filtration.
I’ve pasted in a few links below which provide further details.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Bill
Click to access Policy3_3SurfaceWaterSupplies.pdf
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/turbidity/chap_3-eng.php
http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/opinion/letters/124503333.html
http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/watersupplyarea/reservoirturbidity.htm
Click to access GUIDELINESFORTHEAPPROVALOFWATERWORKS.pdf
_________________________________________
From: Ron Bolin [mailto:rlbolin@telus.net]
Sent: 31-Jan-12 3:13 PM
To: Bill Sims
Cc: Mayor&Council; SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Subject: Re: Purchase of Reservoir
Good afternoon Mr. Sims:
Thank you for your prompt response. I am sorry if I am raising an issue which has a clear and present explanation. You response was clear and concise and for that I am most grateful.
At the same time, I am still missing the background information which would have answered my question without troubling you for a history lesson. Is this information available on line and if so, where? I hope I did not overlook an easily found source which would have allowed me to answer my own question.
Thanks again for your patience.
Ron Bolin
__________________________________________________
—– Original Message —–
From: Bill Sims
To: ‘Ron Bolin’
Cc: Mayor&Council ; SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Purchase of Reservoir
Good afternoon Mr Bolin,
The option of purchasing the watershed to avoid building a filtration plant is not available to Nanaimo. While greater restriction of public access to watershed lands aids in security and is a barrier protecting water quality, we would still need to build a filtration plant to deal with water quality events within our watershed, regardless of ownership.
Essentially, Nanaimo and Capital Regional District have completely different watershed characteristics. Nanaimo’s watershed is consists of steep mountain slopes, much higher precipitation, and a very large area which funnels down into a very narrow canyon to the South Fork dam – a very small reservoir. This means that when extreme weather hits the watershed area, the volume of water rushing over the dam is quite large. This is the source of our water quality excursions. Due to the characteristics of the watershed, the City cannot meet several criteria – most notably turbidity – to defer building a filtration system, regardless of watershed ownership.
CRD have owned the land around Sooke Lake (their water supply) for almost 100 years. The Sooke Lake watershed has lower-elevation, flatter hills, which helps prevent migration of silt into the lake. The lake is of such a size that it takes a year for water to travel from the creeks entering it to the drinking water intake. This allows any sedimentation that runs off the hillsides to settle out long before it enters the drinking water system. The news article/press release that you have quoted is from when CRD purchased an adjacent watershed 4 or 5 years ago. The primary reason they purchased it was to secure their water supply when they need it 50 years from now. Prior to purchasing this land, the CRD had already built two water treatment facilities – both of which employ ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection (just not filtration). The low turbidity they experience at all times, coupled with the UV/chlorination plants allow CRD to meet the ‘two types of treatment processes’ required by the regulations.
Certainly, protection of the watershed is the first barrier in a multi-barrier approach to protecting water quality. Filtration and disinfection are two more barriers. When the CRD news story came out in 2007, the question was raised into purchasing the City’s watershed. It was estimated that the purchase price would be well in excess of $100 Million, not including the annual operations cost of maintaining security and managing the lands, which are about three times the size of the City’s land area. Metro Vancouver is another example that is often cited for watershed ownership – Metro’s three watersheds are protected and restricted, and have been set aside for over 100 years. Similar to Nanaimo’s case, extreme precipitation creates water quality excursions, which resulted in Metro building its Seymour-Capilano filtration plant a few years ago.
Regards,
Bill Sims
___________________________________
From: Ron Bolin [mailto:rlbolin@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 05:39 PM
To: Mayor&Council; Al Kenning
Subject: Purchase of Reservoir
Mayor Ruttan and Council:
http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/timberwest/index.htm
This news from Water Services at the CRD, presents the information that:
“The purchase also allows the CRD to avoid substantial future capital costs of more than $150 million associated with the construction and operation of a new water treatment facility.”
I do not recall hearing about this option. If available it would seem to be better than building a maintainance demanding physical facility. Why haven’t we heard about it?
Ron Bolin
The following information came promptly from Mr. Sims at the City in regard to my question about purchasing the reservoir.
_________________________
Good afternoon Mr Bolin,
The option of purchasing the watershed to avoid building a filtration plant is not available to Nanaimo. While greater restriction of public access to watershed lands aids in security and is a barrier protecting water quality, we would still need to build a filtration plant to deal with water quality events within our watershed, regardless of ownership.
Essentially, Nanaimo and Capital Regional District have completely different watershed characteristics. Nanaimo’s watershed is consists of steep mountain slopes, much higher precipitation, and a very large area which funnels down into a very narrow canyon to the South Fork dam – a very small reservoir. This means that when extreme weather hits the watershed area, the volume of water rushing over the dam is quite large. This is the source of our water quality excursions. Due to the characteristics of the watershed, the City cannot meet several criteria – most notably turbidity – to defer building a filtration system, regardless of watershed ownership.
CRD have owned the land around Sooke Lake (their water supply) for almost 100 years. The Sooke Lake watershed has lower-elevation, flatter hills, which helps prevent migration of silt into the lake. The lake is of such a size that it takes a year for water to travel from the creeks entering it to the drinking water intake. This allows any sedimentation that runs off the hillsides to settle out long before it enters the drinking water system. The news article/press release that you have quoted is from when CRD purchased an adjacent watershed 4 or 5 years ago. The primary reason they purchased it was to secure their water supply when they need it 50 years from now. Prior to purchasing this land, the CRD had already built two water treatment facilities – both of which employ ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection (just not filtration). The low turbidity they experience at all times, coupled with the UV/chlorination plants allow CRD to meet the ‘two types of treatment processes’ required by the regulations.
Certainly, protection of the watershed is the first barrier in a multi-barrier approach to protecting water quality. Filtration and disinfection are two more barriers. When the CRD news story came out in 2007, the question was raised into purchasing the City’s watershed. It was estimated that the purchase price would be well in excess of $100 Million, not including the annual operations cost of maintaining security and managing the lands, which are about three times the size of the City’s land area. Metro Vancouver is another example that is often cited for watershed ownership – Metro’s three watersheds are protected and restricted, and have been set aside for over 100 years. Similar to Nanaimo’s case, extreme precipitation creates water quality excursions, which resulted in Metro building its Seymour-Capilano filtration plant a few years ago.
Regards,
Bill Sims
Nanaimo needs a council with ideas who are prepared to stand up for their ideals . . .
Hi Roger: Thanks for pointing this out. But my question is, when a mouse is elected, does he automatically morph into a cat. Or are there mice that are genetically stable? And if there are, how does one recognize them?
@ Ron
The Election Of Mice (apologies T. S. Eliot’s Cats)
The Election of Mice is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a mouse must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as John, Diane, or Bill,
Such as Jim, George,
Ted, Diana, Fred or Bill . . .
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Phonetia, Admetus, Electra, Demeter–
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a mouse needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum-
Names that never belong to more than one mouse.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover–
But THE MOUSE HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a mouse in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.
(That’s what to talk about!)
Ron. Last year Mayor Ruttan said that the Island Timberlands land that is Nanaimo’s watershed is too expensive to purchase! he said it would cost in the region of $240 million.
Some argue that he would sooner have development on that land to “grow” the City.
The water treatment thingy has been going on for a few years now, purchase of the watershed as an option should have been brought up as soon as the discussion started. I wonder if it even was and strongly suspect it was not. Had it been considered and acted upon we aka. the City would be far further ahead with a huge asset instead of moving forward with something that in and of itself will cost over $1million per year to maintain.
I think the problem has been the focus first on the convention centre and now on a hotel for it. This seems to be the primary goal above anything else that the council is focusing on.
Gord….. are you suggesting that council actually FOCUSES????? What am I missing….
Unfortunately when they do it is on all the wrong things:)
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/node/1602
“The low turbidity they experience at all times, coupled with the UV/chlorination plants allow CRD to meet the ‘two types of treatment processes’ required by the regulations.”
Would be interesting to know how many turbidity warnings the CRD has had compared to Nanaimo.