the limits to water

[andrew]

cathy said:

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.

I think this is the reason. Most of Kelowna relies on the force of gravity to supply houses with water. Because the water starts in reservoirs, above our homes in the mountains, it's advantageous. But if that water runs out at Postil lake, or where ever else the water comes from for other areas of Kelowna, the system would have to be changed for water to be pumped to the houses, from Okanagan Lake. Once the water does run out in the reservoirs, we must wait for the "cycle" to replenish the reservoirs from the winter run off. And I'm not going into the effects of global warming on our water supply. I think thats how it works, hopefully someone can back me up on that?

cathy said:

What I was actually getting at is that there IS enough water to go around

I have question then. How many people do you believe that there is enough water "to go around" for. Basically, how many people do you believe could survive in this community.

I also am looking forward to when you address Rick's question, "Do you believe that there is an unlimited supply of water available to us?"

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

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.

Well, Cathy, 100 percent of our water comes from precipitation, even what we bring in in the form of bottled water. Even if it rained 24 hours a day 7 days a week, no reasonable person could argue that we have an unlimited supply of water.

I guess I have to hear your definition of "wasted" before I can comment any further. Keep in mind that, in addition to personal consumption, irrigation, commercial and industrial use, showers, baths, and so on; we share this area with a host of other creatures who need to use some water too. As well, those who may "over-irrigate" lawns are helping to cool the air through evaporation, adding moisture to the air that many people badly need, and so on. So, although you might argue that they are removing some water from the available pool (pun intended) so that development is somehow restricted, they are not wasting it.

Are you now going to tell me that I have to get rid of my dog because she too uses water that should be saved for people instead? And what about the local bird and animal populations...oh sorry, I forgot that development is rapidly taking care of that problem for us.

[Rick Shea]

Here is one story among many of what is happening around the globe with local water supplies.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3937403.stm

It is clear I think that, on a global scale, we have enough water to go around. The problem is one of distribution. It's awfully tough to tow an iceberg from Greenland to the top of the Yellow River (not to mention the environmental spinoff problems this would create in other areas).

In Canada, we have the restrictions detailed in interwatershed transfer agreements. As well, we are bound by international treaties which, for example, govern the minimum flow that we can send to the U.S. from a variety of Canadian rivers.

And here is one possibility for the future. Yes, I know it's a prediction, but I have yet to see any studies that show the opposite.

www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroZine/english/issues/51/feature3_e.cfm

[Rick Shea]

I recall when I first moved to Kelowna, many years ago, the relative freedoms we had. Given the topic of this thread, the relevant freedoms included lack of water meters, more than sufficient water to use it as we saw fit, no one pointing fingers at their neighbors or agriculture or industry for "wasting" water, lack of punitive rate structures, and so on.

The main difference between then and now? Population growth.

The simple solution? Stop it, or at least slow it down until our infrastructure catches up, and until we're certain that we can continue to grow.

In the meantime, those who wish to blame the victim are having a field day. Shame on them!

[John Zeger]

The Sunday Okanagan ran a story on August 25, 2005, "Possible water shortage a warning to other towns." The article stated "The town of Invermere is wresting with a potential water shortage that has implications for other communities in Western Canada. The town's water supply has been in danger of running low, and a Canadian scientist says climate change is causing the same problem elsewhere. Two weeks ago, Invermere's district council voted to put a temporary cap on all development, limiting building to just 20 units over the next six months."

The article quotes Michael Demuth, a research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada. "He said Invermere is a warning for a looming water crisis that is already starting to impact portions of Western Canada, from Manitoba to Vancouver Island. ... I would say there is actually a good chance in the future that some towns and also some of these big resorts being built in B.C. will have to limit development."

So what is Kelowna's Mayor and Council doing about our looming water crisis? Nothing. Being a reactive and not a pro-active council they will wait until it becomes a crisis before doing anything much like the way they handled the downtown crime problem. The time is at hand to avoid the looming water shortage that will impact our city by slowing the population growth rate of Kelowna to a sustainable pace.

[Rick Shea]

The Globe and Mail carries the same story, and notes the problems being faced by Summerland as well.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050826/BCINVERMERE26/Environment/Idx

There is an addendum to the comment that "I would say there is actually a good chance in future that some towns, and also some of these big resorts being built in B.C., will have to limit development"

and that addendum is " or put a lot more resources and money into getting new sources of potable water"

Given the projections that our precipitation (and so our water supply) will diminish by approximately 35% by 2050, and that the Okanagan will be hotter as well, I have to wonder where that water will come from in our own valley if we continue along our current path.

The Globe and Mail quotes one developer as being quite scared by the cap (which has been removed "for now" because precipitation has been good this year). The town of Invermere is now implementing water conservation measures, at considerable cost of course.

I wonder who will pay all those costs for water conservation, and for getting new sources of potable water. On second thought, I guess I already know.

And it was pretty predictable that the usual bandaid solutions are being pursued without addressing the real issues.

"Invermere hopes to deal with its problem by drilling wells, by instituting new water restrictions, and by repairing the many leaks in its antiquated water system."

So, after doing all this, how many more people will they allow into Invermere before they have to finally stop development because they have again reached the limits? There is only a finite amount of precipitation for their water supply. And why wouldn't anyone in their right mind leave some sort of buffer so that resources are not pushed so close to the limit that one minor change, such as a low precipitation year, creates extreme hardship for the residents?

You only have to look at what is happening at this very moment in Spain and Portugal to see some of the possible consequences.

Why not stop development now? Greed, pure and simple.

[John Zeger]

A link to a great article "Drying up the Okanagan" about the looming water crisis in the valley caused by the collision of an over-populated Okanagan, limited water resources and climate change.

thetyee.ca/News/2006/08/17/Okanagan/

[Rick Shea]

The recycling of water for toilet use is not a new idea, and I’m surprised that it has taken the city this long for implementation. While I support the idea in general, it is presented using the usual groupthink language and hype that surrounds many issues in Kelowna.

First, despite the explicit claim by city employees, this measure will not conserve water, as everyone seems to believe. As any thinking person knows, any water "saved" by this measure simply flows south across the border and out to the ocean.

Second, it doesn’t actually mean that less water would be used in the long run, or that less would run through the sewage treatment plant. Unfortunately, a 30% reduction in consumption is quickly made up by a 43 percent increase in population. Given Kelowna's current growth rate of about 3.4%, that increase would happen in less than 11 years, and we will be right back where we started. Yes, I know that other measures to "conserve" water are being implemented, but we have already reached the point of diminishing returns with them.

My personal opinion is that this is simply an attempt to delay the construction of the addition to the sewage treatment plant until after the next civic election, and to quell public opposition to increased water use due to further population growth. However, unless we completely halt population growth in Kelowna, this plant and additional water supplies will still become necessary, just a bit later that's all.

So, after the first flush of excitement and hype over this initiative is gone, the reality is that our conservation efforts will have gone down the drain.

[nick]

In Today's Penticton Herald:

www.pentictonherald.ca/article_2627.php

[John Zeger]

It's all well and good to implement water conservation measures but, as Rick suggests, without some population growth controls communities are just delaying the inevitable lack of water until some future point in time. Why not be pro-active and at least start talking about population limits while there is still time to do something or does every community where future water supplies are an issue want to have the same fate as Tofino?

[Rick Shea]

I believe that the very fact that communities begin talking about and implementing water "conservation" measures indicates that they are beginning to push the limits of availability, and sustainability.

As I keep stating, given that water is not really "conserved," and given that the costs for constructing new reservoirs and dams becomes so much greater when the easiest sources have been used, and given that population growth will continue, and will place even more pressure on water supplies thereby driving up costs even more, it's important to ask exactly what is the point of "conserving" water?

Who benefits?

Kelowna has worked actively on water "conservation" measures for well over a decade now, with low flush toilets, meters, lawn top dressing programs, and the usual array of measures. It has gotten to the point where neighbors turn each other in for using a bit more water than the average person. The result? Total water use in Kelowna has not declined at all, and is about to increase significantly according to the Kelowna Joint Water Committee report. The cause? Population growth. The side-effects and accompanying problems include congested roads, air pollution, increased crowding and urban noise, housing that is unaffordable, and the usual array of other environmental and social problems. Many long time residents of Kelowna are moving away, either because they can't afford to continue to live here, or because they cannot or will not deal with the problems any more. This is no longer a community, just a temporary opportunity for speculators and the wealthy.

There are even hints that the city is seriously considering dictating residential landscaping standards in order to "conserve" even more water. Measures may include removal of lawns, large deciduous trees, cedar shrubs and other high water use vegetation. This of course will also remove the cooling effect of this vegetation, the pollution-removing effect of this vegetation, the aesthetic appeal of this vegetation, bird habitat, and more. Indeed, I suspect that the city would even go as far as to look at standards for backyard vegetable gardens, to make sure that people only plant low water use varieties.

Yes, this is a semi-arid climate. But the question is, why have we been able to do those things in the past that we can no longer continue to do?

Again, what's the point? Who benefits?

[John Zeger]

Dr. David Schindler, renown authority on water resources in Canada, spoke in Kelowna on March 22, 2007. Dr. Schindler reiterated what he had said previously regarding the dwindling water availability in the Prairie Provinces but also said that major factors affecting future water supply such as global warming and population growth will also impact the southern B.C. Interior. At the end of his talk Schindler called for a comprehensive water policy which included water conservation measures. However, Schindler also said that "[we will need to impose] limits on human population in certain areas" and that "[we need to] get rid of the mentality that we are not good unless we are growing fast."

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the local media today.

Dear Sir:

It is unfortunate that Kelowna seems hell-bent on eliminating the greenery that brought so many people here in the first place. While it is true that we live in a semi-arid climate, we have had sufficient water in the past for orchards, farms, and green lawns and landscaping in the urban area. But agricultural land continues to disappear under the bulldozer and backhoe, and now we are being urged to xeriscape and remove water-hungry plants. To make the latter happen, water rates are structured so that even a large landscaped city lot with a vegetable garden is penalized for using more water than some mythical “average” user.

This urban greenery has many benefits.

A 15 metre square lawn produces about enough oxygen for a family of four, cleans the air of a variety of harmful pollutants, and cools the air. Going organic and using a manual mower make this even more environmentally friendly.

A healthy cedar hedge provides shelter and nesting habitat for finches and other urban birds.

Properly situated large deciduous trees provide essential shade in the summer, help to lower air conditioning loads, and provide protection from ultraviolet radiation. In the winter, the open branches allow solar gain to cut down on heating demands.

Why then the urgency to “conserve” water in Kelowna, and make our city brown and dead-looking?

The simple answer is that city council and developers want more water available to allow more people to live here. The telling fact is that all the expensive conservation measures of the past few years have not reduced total water use in Kelowna, and the Kelowna Joint Water Committee report indicates that total water use will increase significantly over the next few years. Instead, we have allowed city council to continue to completely avoid any responsibility for the growth they so feverishly promote.

So, get out there and plant that lawn. Use lots of water on it. Wash down your driveway regularly (asthmatics will thank you for that). Plant cedar hedges and make sure that they are well-watered. Plant that organic vegetable garden. And start those shade trees now, so that they can reach a reasonable size while you can still afford to live in Kelowna.

And the next time someone criticizes you for “wasting” water, tell them how environmentally friendly you are being, and that you are doing them a huge favor at your own expense. At the same time, tell them how our council, by encouraging unlimited growth, is encouraging more cars and more greenhouse gases (even from all the new natural gas furnaces in virtually all new construction). Tell them how council is encouraging more pollution, more crowding, higher heating and air conditioning bills, poorer air quality, eventual disputes over resources such as water, and destruction of wildlife habitat. Tell them how council is encouraging more effluent dumped into our “pristine” lake – you know, the one that causes people to pay huge sums of money for even a small view, let alone a lakeshore house (or, as I call it, a villa on the sewage lagoon) .

Or perhaps you like living in a dirty, brown, polluted, crowded, expensive city?

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

Today's Courier has an article stating that Okanagan Lake is at a lower level than usual for this time of year, and that of more concern is the fact that flow into the lake has only been about 57 percent of normal this year.

Are we headed for another drought period? It's tempting to wish for that so that people here finally wake up to the water issues in this valley.

At this rate as well, the residency rate of Okanagan Lake will increase considerably, allowing a significant increase in the concentration of man-made pollutants and contaminants in the lake water. Given that many people in Kelowna drink that water, this is the ultimate form of recycling.