|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 1, 2004 12:37:27 GMT -5
A second opinion has been expressed within the past few weeks that the Okanagan is heading for water shortages due to climatic changes and a rapidly increasing population. Coming after similar views were expressed by former fisheries minister Tom Siddon, is a report out of the Summerland Research Station to which Environment Canada was a contributor that basically draws the the same conclusion. Yet our municipal politicians remain with their heads in the sand and opt for solutions which they term "smart growth" meaning everything will be fine if we "grow up not out." Well, anyone with half a brain realizes that merely increasing residential densities will not be a solution to stopping water shortages. Only through the recognition that population growth in our valley has limits and by planning for those limits will a crisis be averted.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Feb 19, 2005 16:29:37 GMT -5
On Feb. 14 general manager Pat Hickerson and engineer Bob Hrasko reported to city council on a 20 year plan for the water system of the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District. Mr. Hickerson stated that there will be a projected 77% increase in water usage over the next 20 years there due to increased development in the area. He said that ground water supplies will not be sufficient to meet the growing demand and that the GEID will have to draw water from Okanagan Lake. Some on council acknowledged that the lake as a source of water is a finite resource and councillor Sharon Shepherd said that "we can't just put a big pipe in the lake." When Mayor Walter Gray asked Mr. Nickerson what the ultimate sustainable population of the area was in terms of water supply, Nickerson dodged the question saying only that this is a regional and provincial issue and that there was enough water for 5 to 10 years of development. Stressing that a lot of the demand for water can be reduced through conservation, Hrasko said that "you only need 2 litres of water per day to sustain human life" and that all that's required is "an adjustment of habits." Are these guys serious? If there is only 5 to 10 years of water left then we are in serious trouble and our politicians should be acting now! But council members didn't even blink when they heard this statement. They're probably thinking that's plenty of time to solve this mess. Not at our present rate of growth, it isn't! As for the comment that humans only need 2 litres of water per day, was Hrasko seriously suggesting that we cut back on water consumption to anywhere near that amount? I don't think Kelownans would consider taking such a large hit to their quality of life as a solution to the problem. Quite obviously, although it wasn't mentioned by anyone at the meeting, the answer to the looming water crisis lies not just in conservation but also in controlling the rate of population growth with the recognition that there is no rate of population growth that is sustainable forever given that water is a finite resource. We must be planning now for a ultimate fixed population size for the entire Okanagan valley.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 4, 2005 16:43:18 GMT -5
I've being doing a bit of digging around regarding the assertion, by some, that we have a huge surplus of water given the size of Okanagan Lake. I note that the residence time for Okanagan Lake (the time it would take all the inputs to the lake to completely fill it if it were emptied) is estimated at about 60 years (more if you check some websites).
What I'd be very interested in, and darned if I'm not having a hard time pinning this down, is the following:
1. How much of the current outflow from the lake (apparently about 465000000 cubic metres per year) is the result of the treated sewage that we dump into the lake? Apparently, the Kelowna plant alone contributes 29000000 L of wastewater per day, or about 284 litres per person per day (assuming about 100000 people, which I know is an overestimate for the number serviced by sewer).
2. How many residences are actually in Kelowna? According to the city website, we use on average about 500 cubic meters of water annually per residence, and that number would allow an estimate of the total residential water use in Kelowna.
3. What is the total water use, including all commercial and industrial use, for the city of Kelowna. That number, divided by the population, would allow an estimate of the amount of water used per capita.
The idea is that we may be able to do a rough calculation of how many more people this valley can support with the "surplus" water from Okanagan Lake before we hit the limit (not that I would ever want to do that, of course).
I am aware that these sorts of things are being looked at elsewhere, and I hope that someone has a nice summary of them. I am also aware that just looking at the numbers ignores the critical issues of fish habitat, water quality, and so on.
If you can provide any of this information, then thanks very much. Hopefully I'll be able to find some of these answers on Monday when I get back to work.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 5, 2005 23:41:49 GMT -5
I'm having lunch with one of our Water Quality Tech people on Tuesday to discuss the issue of water supply, and he has reminded me of one very important but so far ignored issue -- that of water quality.
He points out that the quantity of man-made chemicals which the treatment plant cannot remove is increasing rapidly in Okanagan Lake water, and that some of them are already near acceptable limits. Those chemicals include anti-depressants, hormones, and a host of other even more toxic chemicals. Some of those chemicals are simply dumped down the toilet, but many are also excreted by our growing human population.
He also points out that the 60 year residency rate for our lake means that these chemicals will take a long, long time to leave the system, but more importantly, that we apparently lose more water from the lake through evaporation than leaves the system at the border. This evaporation serves to concentrate the chemicals even more. I'll report the results of my meeting when I get a chance.
I guess, in summary, that we don't have to worry about the impact of highrises and densification, because we'll all be treating ourselves with anti-depressants every time we take a drink. Pass a glass of steroids, please.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 7, 2005 16:13:26 GMT -5
Well, I did have my meeting, and I have a lot to report on later. Here are a couple of things to think about in the meantime: From the B.C. government website, at wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/reference/viruses.html#urban"Viruses passing through treatment plants have chlorine resistance several orders of magnitude higher than naïve viruses and repeated exposure to sub-lethal chlorine doses leads to more resistant strains in only a few generations. Modern water treatment processes have little effect on removing the threat of viral diseases. The best sewage treatment processes reduce viral densities by a maximum of about 104 however viral densities are usually orders of magnitude greater than this and the infectious doses are in the range of 100 to 102" And the more people, the more potential for viral contamination -- this in addition to the issues surrounding antidepressants, hormones, and other man made chemicals. Speaking of that, here's an interesting link about that very issue: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3545684.stmWe really have no idea what we're doing to ourselves, as we drink the treated effluent from Vernon and Kelowna (and, some claim, from all the other cities around the lake, due to the mixing effects of the wind and waves).
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jun 18, 2005 14:13:30 GMT -5
Water shortages are not limited to Kelowna and area. All over Canada, and, indeed, the world, programs are being put into effect to preserve water, and the public is being educated on the subject. If people were to let their lawns get a little crunchy in the summer, there would be more to go around. Also, the increase in highrise buildings instead of houses with yards would decrease the number of lawns soaking up the fresh water supply. Not all of Kelowna's water need come directly from the lake. Reservoirs near by could be upgraded to accomodate for the growing population, as is being done elsewhere than Kelowna. Whether or not people live in this area, they will require water, and will likely face the same problems wherever they live. Victoria, for instance, has suffered major shortages in the past few summers, and has acted accordingly with regulations for water use, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 18, 2005 14:23:01 GMT -5
Water shortages are not limited to Kelowna and area. All over Canada, and, indeed, the world, programs are being put into effect to preserve water, and the public is being educated on the subject. If people were to let their lawns get a little crunchy in the summer, there would be more to go around. Also, the increase in highrise buildings instead of houses with yards would decrease the number of lawns soaking up the fresh water supply. Not all of Kelowna's water need come directly from the lake. Reservoirs near by could be upgraded to accomodate for the growing population, as is being done elsewhere than Kelowna. Whether or not people live in this area, they will require water, and will likely face the same problems wherever they live. Victoria, for instance, has suffered major shortages in the past few summers, and has acted accordingly with regulations for water use, etc. Interesting comment about the reservoirs, in that the GEID is already looking at running a pipeline into Okanagan Lake in order to accommodate the rapid growth in that area, because there simply is not enough rainfall and snowpack in their Postill area watershed to accommodate the growth projected beyond the next decade. Indeed, as a former resident of that area, I have been aware that they have been pursuing that idea since at least 1992. This is not an isolated issue either. Green and healthy lawns and trees have been pointed to by Kelowna's planning department as an essential part of improving air quality in Kelowna -- the filter effect. So crunchy lawns and your apparent inference that we need to reduce green space somehow will only lead to even worse air quality -- an issue identified even by the city as a critical one. In other words, there's no simple solution that does not have an impact on everything else. Even halting or severely restricting growth would have an impact on a wide variety of things. I guess we have to ask ourselves what we truly consider to be important.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jun 18, 2005 15:38:22 GMT -5
Watering times and amounts can be regulated to as to control the amount of water consumed whilst allowing for green lawns. Some people over water, such as by setting timers for sprinklers and allowing them to run daily even in rain, etc. I don't think the reduction of green space is "needed," but highrises would use less water than residention houses do. The surrounding mountains do contain enough trees, which are the main source of good quality air, to maintain good quality air in the city. The lack of grass would hardly be significant, and the buildings themselves would not cause polution. The long distances travelled by people on the outskirts of town, however, would.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 18, 2005 19:50:25 GMT -5
Watering times and amounts can be regulated to as to control the amount of water consumed whilst allowing for green lawns. Some people over water, such as by setting timers for sprinklers and allowing them to run daily even in rain, etc. I don't think the reduction of green space is "needed," but highrises would use less water than residention houses do. The surrounding mountains do contain enough trees, which are the main source of good quality air, to maintain good quality air in the city. The lack of grass would hardly be significant, and the buildings themselves would not cause polution. The long distances travelled by people on the outskirts of town, however, would. Now that's quite a reasonable change. Crunchy lawns do nothing to clean the air. And the city itself, in the OCP, has noted that trees in the urban area are critical for air quality downtown. Finally, I travel what some in Kelowna consider to be a long distance -- 7.8 kilometers to work, and 7.8 home. This week, I walked the trip twice, bicycled once, and took my very fuel efficient motorcycle twice. The last part going home is a steep uphill, but if this "senile old man" can walk and cycle it, then I'm sure that more people can. People will sit in their cars for 1 - 2 hours each way to get to and from work in Vancouver. At least the hour long walk each way gets me some exercise. You see, in many cases it's a matter of choice. As Gandhi said, we must become the change we seek in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 19, 2005 12:49:51 GMT -5
Some people over water, such as by setting timers for sprinklers and allowing them to run daily even in rain, etc. I don't have the quantitative data, but it's clear to me that the City of Kelowna is a large "offender" in this regard. Having ferried children to various sports fields for many years for soccer games, I have encountered fields soggy with overwatering after significant rainfalls. In riding my bicycle, and in driving around town, I see boulevards and green spaces being watered heavily after significant rainfalls. As well, I have to ask why all we hear about is residential restrictions, and people blaming individual property owners, when a large portion of our water use is commercial and industrial as well. I think I can find the ratios, if you are unable to. A comprehensive approach to water restrictions should also include them, shouldn't it? But, as I said in another place, it's much easier to point a finger at a neighbor than it is to deal with the entire issue. So, there's a good business to get into, if current trends continue: inexpensive soil moisture content monitoring systems that are directly linked to irrigation and sprinkler systems, and shut them down when watering is not needed. There are some on the market, but they are certainly not widely used in residential applications. I know that when I have gone on vacation in the past, I have never known what the weather will be while I'm gone, so I've had to leave my sprinklers programmed as though it would be dry.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 19, 2005 13:07:36 GMT -5
I notice, Cathy, that you haven't responded in any way to my post about the GEID. I know I didn't really ask you any questions there, but I will now.
Do you really believe that we have an unlimited supply of water available, and that all we have to do is build new reservoirs (at considerable cost, I might add)?
As well, what about at the other end, where we are dumping our treated effluent into the lake, which happens to be the drinking water supply for much of Kelowna and many other communities around the lake? What are the long term consequences of increased growth in that regard?
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jun 19, 2005 18:17:23 GMT -5
Mr. Shea, I'm not sure if you are intending to compete with me on this point, but it appears to me we agree that polution and water shortages can be dealt with in other ways other than stopping growth. Your description of environmentally freindly transportation and water restrictions are definitly a positive step for the city to make. I myself use various means, such as the public trasport system, walking and cycling etc., instead of cars for transportation.I also agree that commercial and industry water use is a concern, and should be controlled. If the city made a bigger effort to include these activities more often, would there not be less of a concern of population increase? In regards to your questions, I admitadly know little about the water system, and would be willing to do research on the matter at a later date, (after exams,) or if you wish to inform me of the facts. However, I can see that other places manage with limited water resources and much bigger populations, and I don't see why Kelowna should be an acception. The "considerable cost" should not be a factor, since up to date water systems should be a priority. I also understand Kelowna's water system is already out of date, and should have been updated more recently than it has. I do believe there is enough water go around, and that the lake is not the only source of water. Also, if the water being dumped into the lake is treated, I don't fully understand the reasoning that it is upsetting the drinking water. Water taken FROM the lake is treated anyway, so what difference does it make what chemicals go in?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 20, 2005 8:52:52 GMT -5
Also, if the water being dumped into the lake is treated, I don't fully understand the reasoning that it is upsetting the drinking water. Water taken FROM the lake is treated anyway, so what difference does it make what chemicals go in? Please re-read my posts regarding viruses, hormones, and antidepressants. Our treatment processes, both on the intake and the outlet, certainly do not remove everything. Indeed even phoshorous is not completely removed and, given the residency rate of Okanagan Lake, increased growth means an increased rate of accumulation, with all the serious impacts this has had elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 20, 2005 10:01:20 GMT -5
Mr. Shea, I'm not sure if you are intending to compete with me on this point, but it appears to me we agree that polution and water shortages can be dealt with in other ways other than stopping growth. Can you please explain what you mean by "intending to compete with me?" I thought we were involved in a discussion here. Your description of environmentally freindly transportation and water restrictions are definitly a positive step for the city to make. I myself use various means, such as the public trasport system, walking and cycling etc., instead of cars for transportation.I also agree that commercial and industry water use is a concern, and should be controlled. If the city made a bigger effort to include these activities more often, would there not be less of a concern of population increase? Then I suppose we need to take this discussion to all the other threads about the other effects of population increase. The "considerable cost" should not be a factor, since up to date water systems should be a priority. I also understand Kelowna's water system is already out of date, and should have been updated more recently than it has. I do believe there is enough water go around, and that the lake is not the only source of water. Now you're contradicting yourself. Stating that sprinkling restrictions are required, and that we need to use water carefully contradicts the statement that there is enough water to go around. So I guess I have to ask which one it is. And please don't use the old argument about "wasting" water. If you look at the complete hydrological cycle, water is never wasted. Some people may use more than others, and here's one example. I know two families who deliberately bought large lots on Stillingfleet Road so that they could have a vegetable garden and some fruit trees. Their friends and relatives eagerly accepted the organic produce from those properties (some of them react very violently to certain pesticides used by commercial growers), and any surplus was gratefully received by the food bank. Yet the city, through its new rate structure, was penalizing these people heavily because they used more water than "the average." If there is more than enough water to go around, why should these people be penalized for a very socially responsible activity? Do you see what the real agenda is here? I note that the city is being pressured to expand its water system, at considerable cost to the taxpayer, because of the rapid development in Kelowna. I argue that this constitutes a subsidy to developers, taking my money and allowing them to make increased profits as a result. One of my personal opinions, and it is shared by others here, is that we need to increase the DCC's to the point where the developers are paying for the present and future costs of development, no matter what rate that develoment may occur at. Why should I (and eventually you) pay so that we can bring even more people into this valley, with all the consequences that will have? And finally, you still haven't answered a few questions. Here is one of them: Do you believe that there is an unlimited supply of water available to us?
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jun 20, 2005 16:49:30 GMT -5
What I was actually getting at is that there IS enough water to go around providing it is used carefully and systems are updated where needed. If, as you say, I "look at the complete hydrological cycle, water is never wasted." I don't understand, then, why there wouldn't be an unlimited source, provided we are willing to make the effort to access and preserve it.
|
|