Good morning everyone and welcome to the
July 20th special committee of the whole
meeting. The city of Parksville
recognizes the people of the coalish
nations and their traditional territory
upon which we gather with gratitude.
Up front we have uh one report on the
agenda along with a presentation from
consultants KWL uh for the manager of
utilities an update on the water use
planning and management study phase one.
Uh do we have that delegation right now
before we move forward?
I see them here. So I because we're
looking for approval to uh go to the
next one since the only thing ne next on
the agenda. So um are you gentlemen
appearing at the podium here? Welcome.
Come on down sir. Yeah nice to see you
again.
green.
>> You are now if you could introduce
yourself, gentlemen, and uh we'll get
with ready. Looking forward to your
presentation today. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Steve Bridger
with the with Kerwood Lidell Consulting.
Uh and I am the project manager for the
uh water use planning and management
study.
And uh yeah, I'm Craig Southerntherland
with Kerwood Lidle uh Associates and I'm
senior hydraologist and and uh technical
engineer on the supply side for the for
the study.
>> Great. Welcome.
>> Thank you.
Yeah, we have a a brief
presentation to start and then
understand that there's a number of uh
questions uh to go through uh for the
remainder of the meeting.
Yes,
if we could hold our questions uh until
after the presentation, council, and
then we'll get into it a little more
detail then. Thank you.
>> Sounds great.
>> Um okay, so here's the cover cover slide
for the uh study and maybe we can jump
to uh slide number one, please.
Uh so just to do a an overview of the
goals of the project as per the um
request for proposal as as it was stated
initially uh was to review and complete
a comprehensive assessment of the city's
the city and the Englishman River water
supply uh source audible w audible water
sources as well as um the demand and
future demand for the city along with uh
the noose area
um which the system all feeds. Um so
essentially um there was a capacity
analysis to determine what the how we're
going to how we can meet the future
demands and a review of uh this existing
storage including surface water sources
and groundwater sources to see what is
needed to service the system over a
50-year time frame
including the obviously the current
conditions.
Um, additionally, the report was uh to
focus on existing water conservation
measures and what measures can be
further implemented to uh assist with
reducing water demand in the future as
well as take a brief look at the
hydropower generation options if there
was to be a new uh surface water source
implemented. So, that's that's
summarized in our report which I believe
was circulated uh about a month ago.
Um and just to touch on the key water
supply reliability
um focus for the system. Um everything
was studied under um the need to meet
sort of um um I guess best practices for
water supply reliability.
uh and taking a detailed look at what
the current system water reliability is
and and the system effectively or today
the Aerosmith reservoir is the primary
source with an effective volume of uh 9
million cubic meters and approximately 2
million cubic meters in sort of
emergency storage.
Um there's also further um sort of restraint on the
system in needing to provide up to
approximately 1 cubic meters a second as
an environmental flow in the Englishman
River which has been uh in place for a
while. I think it's closer to 1.6
typically but and that does vary
depending on the uh the sort of absolute
minimum that can be provided.
Um and the study was done primarily
looking at uh not enacting water level 4
water conservation measures because we
want to look at uh more typical water
supply system where you don't want to be
having to implement water water
restrictions to that level on a regular
basis which obviously is a is a
significant goal.
Um,
>> so from there I may hand it over to
Craig who's going to go through some
more detail on the immediate analysis
within the study.
>> Thanks. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Steve. And, uh, yeah, thank
you, mayor and council for having us. Um
so I know um
there were some questions um about the
storage evaluation and we just wanted to
go through both how were the um new
sources screened, what did we sort of
use as the original sort of screening
criteria and then how were they
evaluated. Um so the in terms of
screening we focused on storage
opportunities within the the Englishman
River wershed and the local aquifers. Uh
so we weren't sort of looking out beyond
in terms of like re like looking at it
sort of regionally. It was really
focused on what's available for for the
city and for the news. um and with a
focus on the Englishman River wershed.
Um we had um and that was sort of
through through um conversations with staff. Um we the the reliability
target uh was established at 29 out of
30 years or or 90% reliable and that was
based on a review of some of the
guidelines that are available and what
other communities are doing um around
the region and and again that was um
based on some discussions that we had um
at workshops with with staff. And then
finally um was it technically feasible
um looking at topography like gravity
versus pumping storage um and and just
sort of other technical uh technical
criteria. That was sort of the initial
screening evaluation. And then we did a multiple a preliminary multiple
accounts evaluation looking at um or the the storage options that were
selected.
Looking at um capital costs, uh the um
construction feasibility,
technical feasibility, um regulatory
risks, environmental benefits costs. um
but at a sort of semi-quantitative
level. So sort of assigning like okay
high to low. It wasn't it wasn't a sort
of a a detailed evaluation but it was to
be able to provide a way of being able
to rank the different options. Um and
we um so I think maybe Steve can slide
over to the next slide there.
Um yeah. So based on that um we
identified uh um
four wersheds within the um subwaterheds
within the Englishman River wershed and
five potential storage locations um that
are all sort of headwater storage
similar to the way that Aerosmith works.
Um and
a lot most of these had been identified
previously in previous studies in terms
of um from the like the past regional
studies and main the main reason for
that is they're they're the kind of
locations where there's either an
existing lake or there's an area where
the topography works that for every
incremental height of a dam that you
need to construct you get quite a bit of
storage. So that was sort of the main
focus is to try and find those those
locations um to come up with sort of the
best um unit cost per cubic meter of
storage. And um and those
similar to the past studies kind of came
up with the same locations. Um and so
those were sort of the main primary
ones. In addition, we did we did look at
the option to raise Aerosmith and we did
look at side side storage um side um
off channel riverside storage options
and and I'll go through that in in a
minute or two here. Um but the
essentially these of these five options
um four of them the costs are all like
they're in the same ballpark especially
given the way that these cost estimates
were developed. They're preliminary at
this point and it's really order of
magnitude just to give us a sort of an
order of magnitude sense and so we've
except for Morardi Creek which is
significantly more
um and so the outcome of that was to
focus on those four options as part of
future evaluation.
One thing to keep in mind is when we
were doing the evaluation, we looked at
each storage site individually. We said,
can this site alone provide and meet the
reliability target? We didn't get into
the looking at can we combine them? Can
we phase it? We we didn't get into that
level of detail and in phase one. Um so
there's there may be some opportunities
for that moving forward. Um so yeah the
next slide. Um so the other source of
supply for Parksville is uh is
groundwater um in aquifer 216
and there's our groundwater
hydraologist. I'm a surface water
hydraologist so I can speak at a high
level around some of this but um our
groundwater hydraologist identified that
there is maybe some some potential for
additional um withdrawal from from the
aquifer. uh the acryer t like appears
right now to be able to recover based on
its current um uh withdrawal rates and
so there might be some potential there
to provide some additional um flow from
the aquifer to help support the demand
in the community to help reduce the the
demand on the river. Um there were also
two other aquifers that are located
about 8 to 10 km um south of the city
that could also potentially be a new
source of groundwater. Um but there's
very there isn't a lot of information on
those and so there would need to be
further study done to to confirm that.
Um
so in terms of the off channel storage
um so we looked at two. So the the first
that we looked at was an applesto apples
comparison
with the um the other storage sites. So
the other storage locations there was
storage required both for um the
community withdrawal as well as meeting
the the environmental flow need. Um and bringing those both up to the 90
97%. Um and so just to look at it sort
of in terms of the the equal cost um
there's it requires um a res a reservoir
between 100 or 80 to 160 hectares
depending on the um the geometry of the
pond. So, how essentially how deep can
it can it physically be? And um the
intent would be to either divert water
into it or pump water into it through
the winter and then use that water in
the summer. And the rate that that would
need to be to fill that is about um 22
million liters per day. And for
comparison, the current pump station is
um uh
>> 16. Yeah, 16 or 19. Like the the the
pump station's 19. Um and uh so just in
terms of a comparison. Um and and so
that would be running um at that rate
for 6 months um to to fill it. And the
construction estimate was about 72
million. Um so it's about $15 um per
cubic meter and whereas the other
surface water stoages were sort of
between like a dollar 70 to $5 a cubic
meter depending on the site. So just in
terms of a comparison um just to give
you sort of a sense um let me just
double check. I've got the uh um
the sizes here. Um
so
the um 4.8 million cubic meters. If you
think about the size of um of Wrath
Driver Park, um the whole park, it's
about four meters of water over that
area, just to kind of give you a sense
of scale. Um and and so so it's a bit
it's a big area. Um and and so that's
kind of that's one of the reasons. Um so
if we go to the next the next slide.
So another option um would be so what is
the demand that the communities will
need through the summer um by the 2080s
um and this was assuming the current
withdrawal rates from the groundwater um
and it's about 2.9 u million cubic
meters for and that's from June to
October which is sort of typically the
operating period for the dam and so that
would essentially mean not withdrawing
any water from the river over that
period. And for that case again it's
about 50 hectares to 100 hectares again
depending on the depth that you can get
to. And um it's closer to about it's
just a little bit less than the current
in terms of pumping rate. It's a little
bit less than the current pump station
for 6 months. Um they estimate again
high level estimate is about 44 million
approximately.
um and uh and then compar comparison to
the other ones. So based on that was we
sort of um concluded that just for cost
reasons as well as for land reasons um
in terms of both the cost of land the
value of land as well as land use
considerations um that that it just it
wasn't economically feasible to sort of
pursue those options. Um so that was the reason kind of in going
through the report. We could have
expanded on that a little bit more in
the report. Um so apologies for that. Um
but this provides a bit of background on
yeah on on the on the reasoning for it.
So um
so kind of continuing on um we also uh
in terms of increasing storage at at
Aerosmith
uh it would be so there's two parts of
this. One is the in the long term um
relying solely on Aerosmith because of
the limited watershed area um isn't going to be able to meet that
reliability target just because of the
limited inflow to the reservoir um
through the even through the through the winter um
it is a it is small it's it's like one
and a half% of the whole wershed area
and so however Um there there could be
an opportunity in terms of phasing to to
raise the dam as a first step, but and
then that would help sort of provide
some improvement in the reliability.
Um and then move on to a a a more a
larger uh raising a larger increase in
the storage based on on a more detailed
evaluation of a sort of a phasing
option.
the what this would mean is be raising
the dam by about three meters. Um and um
again it wasn't considered more in phase
one on its own because it just wouldn't
meet the reliability target in the
future. Um but as I say in the slide it
could be considered as part of a phasing
in the future potentially.
Uh and the yeah the the cost for this is
sort of in the probably the 5 to 10
million kind of range. Um or um just
without sort of
because there would likely need to be
sort of some additional upgrades to the
dam besides just raising the crest of it
um from a stability standpoint and
seismic standpoint. Um so that was uh
so on the next slide please. Um yeah and so this is just some other
background information um for this study
and we can refer to these um in through
the rest of the meeting if we need to.
Um there's some extra slides here just
that we can go to if we need to to to
refer to anything. Um,
oh yeah. Um, yeah, classic. Again, the
gray doesn't show up. Um, so, so this
is, yeah, [laughter]
so on the side it does, it doesn't show
up on the front. Um, so this is a
similar side. This is the same slide
that we showed previously and it
essentially shows like the contributions
of the different components in the um of
flow in the Englishman River. The gray
is the natural base flow. That's just
how much is naturally coming off the
watershed. The um the blue is what the
withdrawal is at the plant. Um the the
green is is how much the the dam um is
releasing to support the environmental
flow needs and and the orange um which
is tiny little silver um is are the
other licenses. Um, and
so this just kind of go gives you a
sense of the range of the of of flows
that are in the river and and really
does show like there are opportunities
for for being able to um like there's a lot of water in the winter um
further down in the wershed. Um but it's
the challenge is trying to capture that
water further up in the waterershed
where there are the opportunities to
provide the storage. Um,
and this slide is showing uh just a
little bit more of a detail through the
summer operating period breaking down uh
it's essentially taking those four
months through the summer and just
providing a little bit more detail. So
you can really see that the the green
part of the pie is the environmental
flow need and that's
um how much the dam releases from the
dam or supporting the environmental flow
need in the river. So a large part of
the water in the in the dam is is um
supporting the environmental flow need
with the blue part of the pie being how much is being withdrawn by the
community during the operating season.
Um yeah, and then this final slide is is
showing the uh um the reliability
amounts for the current um system and sort of moving out into the future
with the reliability sort of decreasing
over time um with climate change um and
with increasing demand in the community
from sort of it's it's essentially about
half in terms of the reliability number
by the time you reach the the 2080s.
And um yeah, and that's
you did
>> and thank you. Thank thanks very much
gentlemen for your presentation and I
understand that I want to um qualify
that the last three years has been an
incredible learning curve for all of us
here at the table recognizing from our
participation on in the AWS boards as
well as the AWS boards understanding
what our water where it comes from and
where it goes to and what the province
is telling us what we must provide for
habitat and so forth.
Under these learnings that we have, we
recognize that Aerosmith Dam is pretty
well reserved. So we can maintain the
flow rate is actually reserved for
habitat and which is great from an
environmental point of view but for a
point of view from who paid for that dam
and so forth it's not so great because
it was a water users in the in the
system uh including Parksville and the
news with our our participating
collaboration with them. So, that was
one big learning curve that kind of
what's with all that water in there, why
don't we just release that? Why are we
going into um water conservation extreme
stage 4 now? And it's been a hard
message for the public to understand.
It's a hard message for me to understand
quite honestly. So um we we are
considering uh constantly looking at
maybe there's a more equitable way of
who's paying for the operation and uh uh
upgrades to the dam which is needed
including seismic and everything else.
we check on a regular basis and maybe we
have some participation from other
players such as a province which we will
look at at but recognizing that any of
your suggestions for storage that says
Aerrol Smith Dam I say no no no because
whatever we put into it type of thing
we're not going to get out of it but you
know the habitat is going to be very
wellmaintained which is great but at the
same time I think that that's for others
to do we are our end goal as you
mentioned anyways from the very I think
Steve mentioned it that Um, conservation
is not what we're trying to do here.
We're trying to get away from
conservation by creating satisfactory
storage water that's going to meet our
needs for today's growth as well as
future growth. And that is the end goal.
And so, so we're looking forward to um
moving forward on with phase two. Uh,
and that's what we're here for today to
kind of decide where we're going to go
from here on in. And my my understanding
is is very um clear now as to what's
that u storage is and and as far as the other lakes go. Uh the other lakes
if we were to go for the Highland Lakes
the Mararti and all the rest of it if we
were go them they're still using the
Englishman River as a transportation
main uh as the the delivery system. And
once again, I feel that anything that
comes out of those, once again, the
province is going to say, "Well, we want even more of that." And I'm
afraid that getting a water license to
get out of those other lakes is going to
be the same situation we ran into a so
I'm reluctant to go that gentlemen. I'm
still at at at the point in my mind
after everything I've heard that the
best thing that we can do is capture
that that winter u excess water that uh
falls of rain and precipitation in the
winter and capture that and store it
somehow. You've mentioned some really
good ideas. Give us an idea what kind of
looks like other than expropriating Rath
Trevor Park and putting the reservoir
there, you know, because
>> there we go. We know that size works. uh
turned it into an aqua park instead of a
camping park maybe. Um but uh it gives
me the idea of the size. Um my my
question would be um with after having
talks with Mosaic and so forth, mosaic
lands would be more satisfactory
um to use as side storage mosaic lands
adjacent to the indisman river which is
going to provide the sidream storage
flow if possible. the mosaic lands being
relatively close to us, you know, like
as close to us as possible would be the plan because it's all about
cost, but they have a lot of land like
as you say the size of Brass Harbor. Uh
recently, um the RDN just purchased
Hamilton Marsh. Um how many hectares was
that the council? Do you remember?
>> It was a lot. Yeah. for about $30
million. They purchased it. But um part
of the reason for that uh cost was
because it's uh the land the logging
value of it, the the tree value. And so
but there's a lot of areas that Mosaic
have already logged way closer to us to
our city Lemonson, you know, actually
right where their uh offices are and so
forth that may be more palatable to
putting in storage reservoirs where they
could take advantage of the side stream.
So what I would like my preference at
this point is to evaluate silicide
stream storage options and maybe not in just one reservoir but using it would
have to be mosaic lands as the first
suggestion uh adjacent to us and and is
one reservoir in or or do we use
multiples? Do we use you know 1 2 3 4
you know with the overflow going to uh
it gets the cost down apparently by
instead of making one huge one the size
of raster park. Um but at the same time
it it it and gives um better um failure
against um uh
preventing failure of one of one of the
reservoirs I think you have the backups
as well. I would like that to be
explored anyway. So what that would look
like, what that and how adjacent to it.
And once again, um that as well as the
other option of
what would it take to uh purchase land
within uh the industrial park that we
already looked at. So we already own
some land in there. There's other pieces
of land. They're up for sale type of
thing. Is there an advantage to that?
And what is it? if we actually uh deepen
the excavation in that area type of
thing. If we have to buy a few bundles
of property, you know, five and 10
million dollars each, you know, that
that's a lot better than getting it from
the highlands up on top. That is my hope
that we could have in the this next
phase is considering those two as well
as um checking out the possibilities of
um um subsurface wealth so far. I know
um Greg you mentioned anyways that
you're a surface water hydraologist and
I appreciate that. Um but just consider
those other acryers that you they may
provide some some additional uh flow at
the same time which could either be put
uh piped to the ERWS or you know into a
storage system as well. So that was my
two thoughts that I hope that you could
do and and I understand everything that
you've done in the first phase was all
about the data. you've done an amazing
job on that.
given all the data what we have and
where it comes from and actually you
know express that very well but we also
know that we will need more storage
water and the reason I keep on saying I
want storage water from the sides
streaming storage is because
unlike the wells this doesn't affect
other areas
around us their acryer if we're just
taking the winter rains and so forth
we're not affecting the acryers if we if
we overuse or drill more wells type of
thing. Our drilling of those wells could
actually impact our neighbors and that
is not a good neighbor policy in my
mind. And so I think that the sid stream
has all the benefits. The water's there.
We just have to learn how to capture.
So, I also sub subscribe to Water Canada
the magazine because I'm kind of a water
a nerd and so um uh w with that in mind
I know that there's very options across
Canada and so forth that have been
implemented uh other ways of capturing
water or stored or reservoir water if
that those other options you know maybe
borrow some ideas from everyone else
that would be good if we could look at
that same time.
>> Yeah. Anyhow, that's just my comments. I
going to let let it open the floor. That
that's so so that kind of sums up where
I would hope phase two goes. Um,
everything else that you're suggesting,
I say just stop until we get that done
first. Uh, and no pressure, guys, but we
don't have a long time left on our term.
>> No pressure. Uh, but at the same time,
um, I'm just your comments on that. Is
that something that is doable or or or
is there any more clarification you
need? what I I was hoping to get or
>> um no I think that it's clear I think
yeah so it definitely in terms of
looking at it as a phased approach or
options um is is something to to look
into
>> and and that's exactly you you came up
with the term musling as a phased
approach first phase is create this one
the second phase we create the next one
which will give us that um that
sufficient storage but it's going to be
done over phase period type of thing
because um that's the best way to do it
anyways is that um with any any major
project like this.
>> Yeah.
>> So, yeah, I appreciate that that intent.
Yeah. Thank you. Um
council,
>> first up, uh Council Gren, you reaching
for your mic? You want to go? I don't
know. I'm just guessing. Unless you want
to call a coffee break.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think I've had too much
coffee.
>> Sure. I'll go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Uh
thank you, Mr. Mayor. and through you to
our delegation. Thank you very much for
all the work and thanks for coming back
today for this uh committee the whole. I
hope that there's an opportunity for a
bit more of a kind of free conversation
in this format. So feel free to treat it
that way. I think if um if you have
anything you want to jump in on or add
to the the conversation. Um so yeah,
thank you very comprehensive report and
I appreciate the update uh on this. Um,
in terms of I guess maybe I have a lot
of questions around everything, but
maybe I'll just start with kind of the
overarching um question, which is kind
of the goal of this meeting is what
would you see as being um
the the best way to structure a second
phase of this process to get the best
value out of that uh process? uh the
first phase seems to me to and I think
this is what you're speaking about look
at uh what's a single source that we can
use to make up for the the demand and
the the reliability that we're
targeting. Um but there's also
conversation about maybe multiple
approaches uh to to hit that reliability
instead of a single. So with that
context, what would you say would you
would recommend having now done the
first phase for us to get the best value
of the second phase?
» Thanks again. That's it's good to be
here. Um uh so there's two parts of that
um that sort of in in sort of
conversations internally and
conversations with staff. Um the first
is the technical side. So the first is
looking at okay what are are kind of
come up with sort of do the assessment
again in terms of come up with a long
list of potential combinations of those
options and and and and potentially some
others um and look at what are some
options to move forward on a phased
approach. So that's part of it and then
the other part is to start an an
engagement process
with um other interested parties um
around
the discussion around okay there is the
cost but there are other there are other
values to be measured or to understand
in terms of the location. What are some
potentially environmental impacts? um
just to be able to work um
collaboratively
in coming up with that selection. Yes,
there's the technical side. There's sort
of in terms of technical feasibility,
but there are the other um there are the
other components that would also need to
be considered as part of that process.
And having um the other interested
parties involved in those conversations
would be important at this stage because
there may be some that are just they may
be a technical solution, but maybe
there's an a non-starter because of
other other situations. So, that could
just drop off the table right away.
Maybe teasing into the values question
there is uh one of the uh maybe one of
the overarching values is to what extent
do we need to provide uh water for
outdoor use? Um and at what point in the
decades moving forward
do we hit a point where the the uh
indoor use is actually now kind of at
risk. Um my understanding from the
report is that there's no current
concern around indoor and firefighting
and sort of those normal uses. It's just
in the peak times when you have 72% of
the the water being used for outdoor uh
that's where we run into the issue. But
there is a value about and this is I
think shifting culturally as well is you
know do we water our lawns? Um,
obviously we still want to water um, you
know, gardens and all that sort of
thing, but the lawns themselves um, is
something that I think culturally is
changing that people aren't having the
same expectations around having a like a
golf course style lawn in front of your
house. Um, so maybe there's a question
in there which is at what point do we
kind of hit a point where we're now
uh risking not having enough indoor use
water? And uh and then I I know you
can't probably answer the value question
about how much we should be putting
towards lawns, but yeah.
Um yeah so on the first part of the
question um in terms of when that's not
something sort of specifically that
looked at but um generally
the and now this is the total demand. Um
so generally about 2third of the total
annual demand is used through the
summertime. So if you can kind of reduce
that down that's like that is fairly
significant component of of the water um
that total volume and and that was
discussed and addressed to some extent
in the report with regards to
conservation measures um and and uh
providing some uh recommendations on
uh different programs and and potential
uh projects to look at at water
conservation and and that does make a
Right. So you can there there are a
couple of graphs in the report that show
sort of a reduction in the demand and
then a slow increase as the uh with with growth. Um so there isn't there
wasn't sort of a specific in terms of
that that background um what the uh the
future is but it was it was beyond what
the uh the planning horizon was for the
study which was the 50-year period.
Yeah.
Are you?
>> Yeah. Okay. Councelor Gor, go ahead sir.
>> Yes. Thank you, mayor. [clears throat]
Thank you uh for the presentation and uh
very uh detailed report. Uh good to have
those options I think explicitly
expressed now in this meeting. Um my
question is about the methodology. Um
when you gave us all those different
options about potential sources, what
sort of methodology was used to come up
with those costs and the feasibility of
those sources? Was it just uh review of
the previous studies or any satellite
imagery? Like I just want to make sure
we are we are making the most informed
decision when we choose one of those
sources. So if you can speak to the
methodology please. Thank you.
>> Yeah. No, of course. Uh so it was a
combination. Um we reviewed the previous
studies um and and those identified
those areas. We also looked at the
topography um with regards to um a
uh where where in the watershed are
there locations where for that sort of
that incremental height of a dam, how
much storage can you get? and and it
that that assessment came out to kind of
the same locations as as previously.
There are there are so many sites within
the area that that within the watershed
that have that combination of the right
topography and normally normally it's a
lake. So, so if you think about sort of
a it it's sort of the difference between
storing volume in a triangle versus
storing volume in a square, right? So,
for the same amount of of Yeah.
So just to clarify, did that include
like field trips? You went there
actually to
>> No. Okay. There was Yeah. Yeah. There
were no there was no field investigation
as part of this this study. The only the
field trip that we did do was up to the
existing the existing dam.
>> Okay.
>> I have one uh more question. Thank you.
Um you spoke about the Aerosmith Dam and
the possibility of raising it. Uh uh our
current deficit is 2.2 million cubic. it
will give us about two uh better than
nothing and I think uh in the staff
report it mentions that staff recommends
looking at this uh as an option. Um I
personally do like it as a phased
approach uh strategy is already there uh
for us to explore this as an option. Um,
can you speak to a little bit on the
timeline if we were to start working on
raising the dam? What sort of timeline
are we looking at in getting those
additional two cubic 2 million cubic
meters of water? Thank you.
>> Yeah. Um, so there's a couple of
components to the timeline. Um, one is
the the design side and then the second
is the regulatory permitting because it
would require a change to the water
license. And so in terms of timing, it's
it wouldn't be so a new source is
probably in the 10-year kind of range to get a new source online. I would say
an upgrade would be probably half of
that. So yeah, in that sort of range.
>> Thanks. And since we're in committee,
>> yeah, that's sort of after the decisions
been been made to to move forward with
that option would be sort of in that
kind of timeline. Yeah.
>> Right. and and councelor Gorgan as Craig
had mentioned anyways the raising of the
Aerrol Smith Dam would have limited um
value in my mind in my opinion because
of what Craig said about it's such a
small amount of catchment in it be
because it the watershed that would
supply that in fact our existing dam
that we have now does not always fill
right now during the winter months we've
had times when it's not been that
spillover and climate change is changing
a lot of tanks and that is included. So
even if we add um build up the walls
another 30 ft, there's no guarantee that
nature is going to actually fill that
during the winter. So if you c if you
can't capture it as it's such a small
area if you have some rainfall spread
over the whole wershed obviously that's
what the English river does and collects
all that but at the same time that it's
you you've been up the dam I think
haven't you see it's such a a tiny
little cone. So there's no guarantee
about that. That's just my comments on
that. That's why I'm a little reluctant
on that. Um, Councelor Martin, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I I thank you
for the reports there. Um, I was hoping
I would have more decisions to be able
to make, you know, too many options
here, and the phased approach would
probably be the most practical, but um,
what about one of the lakes going into
the dam like using one of the lakes?
It's part of what your study has been.
So the cost of that raising the dam is
that a fiveyear would would be 10 years
too like like you just mentioned.
Would it would that work? I mean what I find really hard is I'm I was in
Victoria when we had a water problem. I
don't know if mentioned and they raised
their dam and they have more water than
they'll ever need now. And so I find
this
seems to be such a simple thing but it's
not.
So is it is it quite different than what
happened in Victoria there Dan?
>> Yeah thanks council Martin. Um yeah
there's so it the the main um driver is
there are two there are two pieces when
you're looking at water surface water
supply that you need to consider. One is
how much water on an annual basis is
there that's coming off. And that's to
be able to provide flow throughout the
year um both for the community and for
environmental flow needs as well as be
able to refill the storage that you've
depleted the year before. for um for
the CRD system um down in Victoria, the
greater Victoria Water Supply system. Um
their wershed in terms of a ratio is
significantly more is significantly
bigger um with the ratio of the amount
of water that's available in the wershed
to this amount of storage because the
wershed is quite a bit bigger. Um the
other piece with the Victoria system is
um they do have that it's not been
implemented yet, but there is a future
potential implementation of the Leech
River system to be able to bring
additional water in. Um,
going back to the first part of your
question around the uh other lakes
upstream of of Aerosmith,
it's because it's all coming from the
same watershed.
It's it's you you need to whether that's
storage is being filled at the
downstream end where the dam is or
further upstream, it's all coming from
the same location. So you it's even
though you could split that storage up
over a couple of different locations
because the overall wershed isn't
supplying sufficient water to refill the
storage currently. It it wouldn't
provide enough to fill up two stoages in
the same wershed. You could look at it
at a separate whed like the fish tail as
an example. Um, but because it's all
coming from the same watershed, it's it
it's uh it wouldn't be able to fill up
both both of the the stoages. Yeah.
>> Good. Good. Counc. Go ahead, sir.
>> Thank you through the mayor to our
delegation. Uh, in your presentation
here, you mentioned Oquer 216. Uh but I
in your report it was off for 221 that
you guys were speaking about as uh the
potential to there. So uh I guess why
the shift from like why the focus on 216
here and not mentioning 221.
>> Yeah.
>> But and also uh isn't 221 known
vulnerable aquifer as it is now? Um you
talk about groundwater like being only
you know potential uh supplement there
too. But um yeah anyways why Hagum 221
is not mentioned here but it was one of
the key findings in your report.
>> Yeah um did you want to speak to it? Uh
yeah.
>> Yeah. The um we did look at um both
aquifers. Aquifer 221 if we could do you
mind pulling up that slide with the uh
um aquifer 221 is there is a system sand
periel I think that draws from that
aquifer and it is closer to uh to the
ocean. Uh so further study would be
needed to to figure out um what further
water could be drawn from there. I think
here the reference to um acquer 216 is
your current aquifer where where again
there's um potential for for a small
amount to be drawn from that as well. uh
just further study is needed in terms of
a groundwater numerical model which uh the regional district of
Nanaimo has has has done some of that
work in the past but it hasn't been done
in the context of the city's supply and withdrawal specifically.
» Okay.
Um and then also it seemed like uh
Shelton and Healey Lake were some you
know primary uh sources that have been
identified in the past too. What's your
guys' opinion then on the the potential
out of there and and you know I guess
like why haven't they been highlighted
as more as like the you know we're
looking for some kind of clear direction
as saying like this is your best option
uh for not just um the value but for you
know if you look at a lifetime as uh
councelor Gren mentioned like looking uh
forward ahead in in generations here uh
would this not be the one to benefit us
long term uh you know I don't want to
see us take a position of going, let's
do something that's of good value,
meaning just cheap for us now, but then
in 20 years we go, oh, like we we should
have gone with the, you know, the more
robust system because now we just made
it harder for ourselves later on. We
already spent a whole whack of money and
now it's more expensive to do what we
should have done in the first place. So
you know when I think about value it's
the long term not just what you know
this uh this council or the next council
will be uh having a face for the
taxpayers but you know the residents in
20 years what's the the you know the
value over the lifetime.
Yeah. Um yeah thanks councelor presence.
Um so there's uh for for Shelton and
Healey um there have been they they have
been identified previously as as
potential um options as you'd mentioned.
Um so there were in addition to the cost
um there were some other considerations
uh for that that may kind of at the
level of the analysis that was done to
sort of provide clear direction. the um
there was so for Shelton it's similar to
Aerosmith in that the watershed area is
relatively small and so the ability to
refill storage in that location is is
limited.
The um Healey is downstream. It has
quite a larger a larger watershed area
which is h which is helpful in terms of
refilling. Um but um there could
potentially be some environmental um
considerations. It's more of a wetland
than a lake. Um and so there might there
could potentially be um species at risk
or other considerations that would need
to be considered as part of permitting.
So there's a bit more of a permitting
risk, an environmental risk on that one.
And then the other piece for both is the
amount of storage that's required is it
would be more um because there would be
a requirement to release because the
waters coming from the south Englishman
river wershed there would be an
additional requirement to supply
environmental flow needs for the
southishment. Um so the amount of
storage that's why the storage numbers
for those are higher than than fishtail
is because there would be a supplemental
need to supply um additional flow along
the along the south Englishman. Um so
even though they um they might they
they're from a from a technical
perspective and a cost perspective
they're they're they seem to be high on
the list because of those other
considerations. um they kind of balanced
off with the other with the other
options like fishtail or or the South
Englishman tributary. The um fishtail
um has a smaller volume requirement
because it's it's feeding directly into
the Englishman. So it would essentially
supplement the existing environmental
flow need requirements for for the the Englishman River, the main stem of
the Englishman River. um as well at but
one of the challenges with Fishtail was
more on the technical side is is access.
Um it's it's it's a very it would be a
difficult site to get to. Um so sort of
those trade-offs and it was it we sort
of that's why we went through that
process and in the end there were
several that kind of came out close and
so there'd need to be kind of more
evaluation. There wasn't sort of a clear
front runner after doing that analysis.
So yeah.
>> Go ahead.
Um
Sorry. Thank you. Um, so speaking of the
Fishtail area as well, there is that
small lake uh between Aerosmith Dam and
Fishtail, Hidden Lake, I believe it's
called. Uh, why no mention about, you
know, draining that one into uh the
Aerosmith Dam. Seems that it it seems
like the access is it's on the same side
of the ridge. There's already a road
that's going right up to it. It's right
above Aerosmith. It seems like you could
just put a line in a tap and then you
know I know it's not a lot of volume but
um when you talk about if the dam's not
spilling over you know if you're
supplementing even 20% out of it that's quite a bit more water that's not
being utilized right now. Um is that an
option or or why has that not been
discussed as like here's a little bit
more low hanging fruit to get more water
to the dam?
>> Yeah. So um sort of similar it um so a
hidden lake flows into Aerosmith as as
you indicated and because it's within
the same watershed
um whether whether that's stored at the
existing location or at Hidden Lake,
it's all coming from the same volume of
water. Um, and so essentially your your
the volume that you would require to
fill up Hidden Lake is now not going to
clear Smith water.
>> So it's already draining into the dam.
>> It's already draining into the dam
already. So So capturing it further
upstream.
>> Um,
it's not providing a benefit.
>> If it's already draining into it, then
that that Yeah, it's a good point at
that point. I just to me it just seemed
like it sits there and just evaporates
and and doesn't uh do anything. So
because you have water up there in
August as well as sitting up there and
our dam's going low and there's still
water in Hidden Lake. So I just thought
why would we keep water up in there? Why
not put all into the dam into the same
source?
>> Um okay, thank you for that. Appreciate
[clears throat] that.
» Uh
councelor
certly go ahead.
>> Thank you Mr. mayor and thank you very
much for the presentation and the update
and the information. I really appreciate
it. I have a and I wanted to focus the
questions on this particular topic and
leave the aquifer and groundwater uh
conservation separately. Um, I was
curious first of all, and forgive me
everybody here who already knows this,
but I don't recall if the South
Englishman River flows into uh the
Englishman above or below the clay
banks. Can you answer that? Can somebody
here answer that?
>> I Yeah. Um, yeah, my understanding is
it's above it flows in above the clay.
>> That's what I was afraid of. That's what
I thought. But I was thinking, oh, I
just haven't been up there recently, so
I couldn't recall. Okay. I just thought
that would eliminate a little bit of a,
you know, an area of some friction,
let's say, regarding water treatment
plant. But my questions are also about
uh Shelton and Healey and and the
information you've given has helped a
bit with that. But um presumably this
they would not be combined in a way as a
phrase approach but that if one went
with Healey that is basically drawing
from Shelton as well as it feeds into
Healey would that be correct. So in fact
uh if we if one looked at um Healey then
that is drawing on that whole area
correct okay thank you. And another
question again for clarification.
Um you know hearing the mayor speak uh
and yourself speak about the sidestream
storage. Um
I I've just I guess I've been a little
bit perplexed like how is that really
different from uh what's being looked at
here in terms of providing a dam and and
gathering an area that is storage that
is then released as needed. and over
time um although perhaps I guess the
spillover part is not necessarily
released sorry utilized for the city but
nonetheless depending on the size of the
dam that actually provides storage. So
is is really the difference in terms of
considering something like that is it
around regulatory
um requirements if I made from the
province or is it around water licenses
or if one had something like sidestream
storage would that not also need some
kind of water license I'm just not
understanding
why one would look at that if we um are
able to provide enough storage of water
with one of the options that you put
forward.
>> Um, yeah. So, I think
so I'll just clarify in terms of your
the first part of your question. Um,
yes. So, for Shelton and Healey, they
were both coming from the same the same
watershed and there could be the
potential of of having so one larger dam
at at Healey or two smaller dams, one at
Shelf and one at Healey. So there are
some potential options there, but again
sort of similar to to Aerosmith, it's
all coming from the same wershed. So you
the total volume that's available is is
the same no matter where you're storing
it. Uh
I'll I'll stick on that side. Um so the
for the the licensing um because it is
in it's new storage um there be a new
dam there would be a requirement for a
license a new license for the structure
and
the license needs to define both what
the location the volume and the use the
intended use. Um and so in this
particular case it would be there would
be a component of it for uh the
community um demand and withdrawal and
the other component of it would be for
storage to supplement flows in the south
Englishman river. Um because the storage
is located on the south Englishman there
would be an expectation that there would
be additional flows provided on top of
what's required for the community. So
that's why there's more storage. the um
for the
and and the main reason for that is
because you'd be releasing the flow and
during the summer period when the flows
are low, when the base flows are low and
um the the for the east coast of the
island, um essentially the the policy is
that you provide you need if you're
withdrawing water during that time, then
you need there's enough storage to be
able to support the withdrawal as well
as an environmental flow need. Um the
for the off channel storage uh the
intent there would be that the water be
withdrawn during the period when there's
higher flow and so
there would there may still be that's
one thing I can't comment on is like
there might still be the need for
additional environmental flow needs
potentially with that. It's it it it
that would need some further discussion
with the regulator on that one. But the
sort of the intent would be that the
water would be withdrawn in the winter
when the flows are higher um and then
stored um in in a um in a location in a pond um that would then be used
through the summer period. the and I
guess from a from a
technical perspective the difference
would be that the pond um an off channel
pond would require you would be
constructing the volume by excavating
and and burming like essentially
creating a dugout a really large dugout
um or a series of dugouts um versus um
using a natural feature um and a dam to
be able to provide the storage. And so
there's sort of it the main differences
are just sort of the the footprint the the incremental footprint of of the
storage area. So if we're looking at say
Shelton for example, um there's already
a lake there. Um, and so you the lake
would be bigger, but it would the the
incremental size of that would be less
than what a a new pond would be. Um, so
that there's there's other
considerations there, too. And so
there's land considerations,
environmental considerations. At the
same time, off channel storage, you
would sort of remove those potential um
potential regulatory. if there was a a a
good location, you could remove some of
the other regulatory environmental
concerns around raising a lake. So,
raising a lake, there are concerns about
how does that affect the the the
riparian area? Um what kind of impact
does that have on the land? Um the land
like there's the land owner. Um whereas
providing offstream storage, you're
eliminating some of that because it's
separated from the the riparian zone. Um
and uh there could be other terrestrial
considerations in terms of changing that
habitat from terrestrial to aquatic but
um but it but there's a trade-off there.
>> You mention sorry also mentioned the
potential water quality uh concerns. So
would need to be some detailed study on
uh on how that would be impacted having
storing water and not not having outflow
from it or no movement in that water.
Yeah,
>> Dr. Wood, go ahead.
>> Thank you, mayor. Uh I sent a slide to
staff. I'm hoping that they got it. I
wasn't really planning to speak to this.
is um
it's with regards to um environmental
flow needs. And so, um,
in your presentation today, we saw that
the flow in the river during the drought
periods or the dry season is actually
better because there's a dam. And so, I
think we have some misconceptions about
what the dam means. And yes, there's
environmental concerns when we're going
to build the dam. We saw a lot of that
with site C. you know, you're flooding
farmland and you're never going to use
that land again, etc., etc. So, where we
build the dam, there's definitely
environmental concerns, but um I pulled
a bunch of data that's public data as to
how the river has done since we were
pulling the data. And you can see that
it was very low uh lower than before the
dam. And now the dam actually makes it
obviously better um than it was before
we were holding water up there. Um you
can also I put population growth on here
too. And
the idea seems to be that if we can flow
more water uh from upland, we're
actually making it better for the
rivers. It's not worse, it is better.
the dams make the rivers and you know
the environment for the fish better. Um
and so I think there's a misconception
that um we built the dam and things got
worse. You can see by the data that the
river used to be much more dry and if we
weren't releasing water from the dam
right now there'd be a trickle. Um, and
so I I just wanted to mention that when
we're talking about environmental needs,
if there was Shelton or Healey or
whatever uh options up there that if we
build more upstream water storage and be
releasing it, the the lower down on the
watershed is healthier, not not worse,
because we get to control a little bit
and add a little bit more water when
there wouldn't have been naturally. Um,
I'd love to see us plan for zero
snowpack. Uh, if we get years with
snowpack, great. With more, you know,
that's natural upland water storage is
how I kind of look at it. I think I
mentioned that to you guys before. Um,
but I would love to hear your thoughts
on if I'm, you know, if I'm on the right
track. This is data looks right to you.
know, is that what dams actually do?
they make lower on the wershed? Do
they make the rivers actually healthier
um than they would be naturally?
>> Um,
yeah. No, thanks Councelor Wood for your
question. Um, yeah, so again, um, I'm
going to focus on the Englishman. Um,
dams as a whole is a is is is a is
definitely a broader broader question,
but um, for the for the Englishman River
specifically, um, yes, like the the the
dam has provided storage in the upland
that is providing increased flows for
almost the entire main stem of the
Englishman River. Um and one of the
there there are two parts to that. One
is it's um it's increasing what the
flows were downstream of the intake um
to be able to to to provide benefit for
that for the intake down to the ocean.
Um but the other piece is the water that
the community is using is flowing all
the way down the river before it's
getting withdrawn. And that water is
also benefiting upstream. Um
uh by like alternatively when the dam
was constructed there could have been a
pipeline that was constructed all the
way down from the dam to the community
and that water wouldn't have gone into
the river. So there's so there's a
benefit. It's a it's a co- benefit. So
there's a benefit to the community and a
benefit to the river. Um and yeah and so
for Shelton and Healey there would be
that benefit to then the South
Englishman as well. Um but that would
need to be looked at and offset against
what are some of the concerns around
raising the water level in the lake. Um
and and and that tradeoff it's it's it's
about considering those trade-offs.
Yeah.
Can I sorry I add to that council we're
just in regard to the um a new project
also there there could be bene uh there
obviously we're talking about benefits
the environment there could be
opportunity to seek funding from other
uh sources too where uh environmental
agencies are such that to promote that
uh water usage downstream for uh for the
environment.
>> Yeah. So if there's that co- benefit of
an environmental benefit and a community
benefit, there could be some additional
um potential funding sources if it's
provide if it's showing that it's
providing benefit for for habitat for
aquatic habitat. And then you know my
followup and I don't know how the
regulators operate but um if I were a
regulator I would be balancing the
environmental concerns of you know
raising the level of the lake and what
happens way upstream uh versus the
obvious benefits to the river fish
habitat etc downstream. Um, and if the
feds and the province want us to build
more housing, well, you know, obviously
water supply is part of our
infrastructure that we provide here. And
so if I were a regulator, I'd be like,
yeah, you know, the water level is going
to go up at whatever, you know, location
we choose. Um, but the benefits far
outweigh for the environmental flow
needs, uh, for the community. They they
far outweigh that. And so I don't know
how regulators, who is that? I don't
know how they typically operate and
maybe you guys as engineers maybe maybe
you could shed some light on what they
look at when they when they are
balancing these decisions.
>> Um yeah so so there are um really
sort of three areas I guess broadly that
the regulators looking at on the water
licensing side anyway. Um so one is the
first is is there enough water
technically? Um the second is does would
issuing the license impact um any of the
rights holders. So that's um property
rights, other water rights holders, uh First Nations, land title, um and
then and making sure there's because the
province needs to consult and and with First Nations. So there's there
there's a First Nations um component to
the question in terms of making sure
that that the community is on board with
what the direction is. Um and then uh
there's and then there's also the
environmental component. Um and to some
extent the social component as well. Um
so there there's usually a development
plan that's prepared that by the by the
proponent. So whoever's applying for the
license needs to put together a document
that kind of outlines the benefits and
the costs of each of those components.
Um and and then it's up to the regulator
to go either um yes like the the I I
concur that overall for those different
components that the benefit is to issue
the license or no it's not or there's
the middle of need more information
right and so that's essentially the
process for the licensing and then on
the on the DFO side um it's really more
focused on the The main sort of test is
are the actions being taken? Are they um
altering
um or destroying fish habitat? So that's
their test um in terms of issuing a a a
license under the under the Fisheries
Act. So they're really focused like
their their focus is really on the
aquatic habitat um and are the actions
being taken are they going to impact um
and like either alter or destroy habitat
in any way. Um
>> yeah,
>> thank you very much for answering those.
And to your last point, yeah, I don't
I'm not a biologist, so I don't
understand like if we're actually adding
more water to the habitat than would
naturally be there. So, I don't I don't
quite understand the environmental flow
needs, which are higher than
historically what it would be. Uh, but
thank you for answering those and thank
you to staff for um throwing that slide
up. Thanks, Mayor.
>> Great. Thank you. I I'll just uh throw
in just a comment. Anyways, um just
spitballing here. Um I hung around in
Calgary a little while and my use and so
forth. What is the use of for the
Glenmore Dam? Are you familiar with the
Glenmore Dam? It's right in the middle
of Calgary. Well, Calgary is growing all
around the Glenmore and Heritage Park is
right beside there, the huge subdivision
and so forth. But are you familiar with
the Glenmore? Is it is it actually flood
control like all the problems they've
had in Calgary and the flood control,
but are they actually using it as a
storage for their potable water?
>> Um, yeah. So, my under I know a little
bit about it, so I'm going to qualify
that, right? But I think my
understanding is is it's twofold. Um so
there there is some um uh storage for
flood control to some extent and then
also like my understanding is they do
use Glenmore as as one of their water
supplies.
>> Right. Yeah. Yeah. It it that's one of
those like as we say a phased let's put
a reservoir here because we have the
land here and it's right adjacent to
probably the B river anyways are right
there. So yeah,
>> um good planning
>> and yeah and I know like relatively
recently my understanding is they've
also provided some additional flood
relief um through a new system that that
allows the water to flow out into the
flood plane which is agricultural land
>> right
>> um and then slowly released back into um
into the elbow before flowing down into Glenmore and I think it was just
recently tested with the recent with the
recent rains and I believe that they're
sort of evaluating what the water
quality quality impacts of that have
been um Yeah.
>> Yeah. And and that's exactly I did a
tour with FCM anyways back in Calgary
anyways two years ago and I saw the
results of that management of the storm
water and it was huge but um they had to
do it because they had a a disaster a
few years previous on that.
>> So thank you for that. Just a quick
question. I'll go to the second time
speakers in a second here. Um we're going to be looking for direction
from council anyways to say um which
where we want to go on phase two um soon
here. Um just in your estimation if we
took just a simple approach for phase
two as I was suggesting just come up
with storage solution or something like
that. Um we're talking budget here. You
know we have I understand $431,000 left
in our budget anyways that we have
allocated for this study. um could
that's uh just that portion and not do
anything else that was suggested would
that be able to be done for uh within
our budget.
So the so just to in ter of clarifying
um so looking specifically at the um at
the offstream yes storage um and just that comp component of it um yes
yeah um yeah um in terms of the broader
um sort of ideas it that's going to
depend a little bit on the scope but
that that piece of the scope yes
>> I I would expect it would be within that
but uh just from your your past work all
you had to do on that but I just
>> don't assume anything unless you get get
the answer. Thanks. Thanks for that,
Greg. Councelor Gore has another
question.
>> Thank you.
>> Oh, sorry. And councelor Gran, you you
want to follow up too, Council Gore and
then over to you. Yes.
>> Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Um,
you mentioned about the potential uh to
withdraw from the aquifers.
Um,
and looking at the the studies of the
aquifer that have been done by the RDN,
we see that our acryers are stressed.
Uh, I think 216 is not um coming back up
as as quickly as as we would like it to.
Um, but also the interconnectedness of
the groundwater and the surface flow.
So, I want to make sure we are doing it
responsibly. We just don't think that
the groundwater let's take it all. uh uh
because that will eventually also impact
the the the surface flow in the
Englishman. So do you still think the
aquifer is a viable option and not
impacting the base flow in the
Englishman? Um
and and 216 in your opinion is it is it
healthy? Is it is it able to recharge as quickly as as we would like? So we
can use this as a viable option as a
ground water source. Um yes so yeah cl
qualify on that. So so um our
groundwater hydraologists so water line
um they they evaluated the data and in
their opinion that there's um there is
potential to help supplement um the
community withdrawal but there isn't
enough to provide all of the water needs
for the community. So there's there um there's appears to be at a high
level in terms of with the data that to
be able to supplement but not to be able
to provide there's not sufficient to be
able to just rely on the groundwater. So
>> right uh and just to clarify I think
that withdrawal to supplement is
expected in the summer months. Uh that's
when also the the river is more
stressed. uh and in my opinion I think
even the acquers would be at the at
their lowest um so maybe there's a sweet
spot that we can you can get that number
right in terms of the aquifer like I
said without impacting the acryers also
you know help the the surface flow uh so we're not impacting that okay thank
you welcome
>> yeah I just mentioned as well councelor
Gorb recently at the RDN Erica put a
presentation to us anyways about the
water confirming that Parksville was or
19 wells are using aer uh 216
and also but uh had other data
suggesting that our wells actually were
not being uh stressed actually they were
um regular they hadn't uh dropped in
fact a couple had actually improved and
it's right in the report from Murray was
there as well with foracular 2 and6 I
just had pull up the stats anyways here
on that actually our spring wood
wellfield is actually doing Well, we're
not stressing because of climate change
at this time. Uh, councelor Gren, go
ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And actually,
separate from my questions, uh, I am a
bit confused on some of this
terminology. Uh, when we speak about an
aquifer being stressed, uh, am I correct
that that actually refers to the, uh,
the number of straws, so to speak, that
are permitted to be in that aquifer uh,
as opposed to the amount of water that's
in the aquifer? It's just the potential
to draw from the aquifer as opposed to
the ability of the aquifer to supply
that.
» Yeah. Yeah.
>> I think it's it's a combination there
where um the term for an aquifer being
stressed. Again, I'm not a hydraologist
or hydro geologist either. My
understanding is that the the rate of
recovery of the aquifer level is is
declining or it's you know it's not
coming back as quickly as it used to
type thing.
My my understanding is since the um or
prior to the water treatment plant being
in place that the the groundwater usage
was higher than it is today and uh since
that time there's more surface water
through the water treatment plant such
that the groundwater has recovered a
little bit better and uh such that
there's the uh water levels looking at
the data that uh that we had for the
study and it's within I water lines
appendix within the study. It shows sort
of increasing trends of of groundwater
levels in several of the uh the city's
well points
>> because that's how you could say that
the aquifer is both stressed and
recovering
>> because that's what it's I think
described as right. So so it's stressed
in that there are a lot of uh draws on
that aquifer. Uh there's a lot of
potential that could be using the
aquifer. Not just the city of
Parksville, but a number of wells uh are
using that aquifer. Uh but the actual
overall trajectory of the aquifer is
that it's recovering.
>> Is that correct?
>> I think we'd have to review it further.
Yeah. In this in
>> Okay. That's just what I've seen and
what I think the report is kind of
indicating. Yep.
>> Maybe Murray wants to step in on that.
Yeah.
Okay.
» So the uh the concept of aquifer stress
at least in how we treat it in our water
budget studies that we do in the RDN uh
is more of a mass balance thing. So it's
not looking at the number of straws in
the aquifer. It's looking at how much
water is withdrawn compared to how much
water is is uh recharged to the aquifer
using lots of elaborate models that I
don't understand either. Um so the
concept of the stress level of the
aquifer and whether the aquifer is is
stable or recovering or diminishing
those are two different things. So one
is based on a on a math balance and the
other one's based on a relatively
long-term trend. And I think what you've
all said here is is really accurate in
216. It's a very heavily uh utilized
aquifer and it's it's highly stressed uh
from a mass balance perspective, but it
is recovering uh particularly locally in
the uh around Springwood because the
city hasn't been using that water for 5
years at any great amount.
So, it's there's two two quite different
concepts there.
>> Yeah, thank you for that clarification.
I think it's pretty important to
understand because as much as possible
to understand um because there's a
difference between uh I guess like
having a bank account that has a lot of
people doing withdrawals from the bank
account but that doesn't speak to
whether the bank accounts being
replenished with cash or not. So, you
could say it's stressed and that there
are a lot of people with with debit
cards out there on that bank account,
but that doesn't speak to whether fully
whether there's enough in the bank
account to supply all those those cards.
Um, so anyway, that was a little tangent
there. Thank you for clarifying. Thank
you for that, Murray. Um I the I think
one of the uh overarching questions that
the community has on on this whole topic
is uh speaks to why are there so
frequent watering restrictions put in
place? Uh and they seem to kind of come
more frequently than they used to. Um uh
maybe can you get into what the findings
are that where that would be attributed?
Is it and to what extent is it climate
change? To what extent is it population?
And um and on the population side, would
you say that uh the population of
Parksville has been increasing uh at a
higher or as expected or lower rate than
what the previous like I think 2011 plan
was uh expecting. Um so maybe you can
sort of circle around those topics.
Thank you.
Um yeah, I will I'll follow up on the on
the first first part of of the the
question there in terms of the um the
changes that we've been seeing. Um I I'm
not sure if we've got a copy of the
report up that could be be shown, but
there's um let me just double check the
uh
what [clears throat] page it's on, but
just give me one second.
Yeah. So, I um I think it's on page 6-4,
I think.
» Page of the PDF.
>> Yes. Uh, I'll see if I can find it.
Apologies for the uh the delay. I think
this would just be it's a it's a helpful
image to help explain what's going on.
Um,
Yeah. So, it's on it's paid. Uh
>> got the one there, Greg.
>> Um yeah, that one that one that one will
work.
Um,
so,
uh, actually
there should be another one. Um, is it
this one? Yeah, here we go. It's on it's figure 6-6. It's on page um 57,
yeah, that one there. Um,
so, so this this is a a a graph. Um, oh,
uh, next one down. Yeah, that's it
there. Perfect. Thank you. So, thank
thanks for your patience and bringing
that up. It just helps with explaining
what's going on. Um, so this is a a
graph showing flow in the Englishman
River. um
over with the um the orange the orange
line um being sort of conditions between
2007 and 2015 and the green line being
conditions between uh uh 2016 and now.
So
roughly 10ear periods. And um the down
at the bottom of the chart, you can see
those two areas that are highlighted um
in in orange and in green and the the
dashed line below those it is showing
the what the base flow in the river. So
this is the average. So what the base
flow in the river would be if there
weren't releases from the dam. um and
the area between those two. Um so that orange area and the green area is
representing the volume of storage that
is being released from the dam over
time. And so there's a couple of things
going on. Um one is the over time the the
rate that the water level is dropping in
the spring isn't really changing very
much, but it's happening sooner in the
year. Um and and the second is that the
base flow the ultimate low point is also
getting lower. Um so so the amount of
water that's being released from the dam
to support um both the environmental
flow needs as well as like well the
environmental flow needs is increasing
um over time and then on top of that
there are the uh the community
withdrawals because that um the line sh the solid line shown is the would be the flow in the like
just upstream of the intake, right? So,
just before the water gets withdrawn.
So, that that includes both the
community withdrawal and the the uh the
EFN. Um yeah, so there's there's um
there is the data is showing there's ch
it's changing um and there like there are a number of reasons for that.
There's there are climate change reasons
for that. Um there are increased
um some increase in demand over time um
because of the warmer years and warmer
summers higher higher demand for
irrigation. Um as well as there have
been like like the the ways that the
watershed is used in terms of the land
use like does have impact on on flows.
Um it's hard to quantify that. It's
really difficult to quantify it but
there are there there can there can be
changes. So things are changing and and
that's the data is showing that there
have been significant changes in the
water even in a fairly short amount of
time over the last 20 years um in terms
of the the volume of water that's now
required to support both the
environmental flow need and there's only
like the bank account account
analogology analogy there's there's $7
million [laughter]
in in the bank account um and and the
withdrawals are getting higher. So, it's
just it we're like the amount of water
that's available is at the dam. Um so,
in order to um to reduce the amount of
withdrawals, both the community demand
and and the environmental flow need um
have both been reduced like need to be
reduced in order to sort of conserve
that that storage for the long over the
longer period because it is you can also
see how much longer the the releases are
from the down as well. Yeah.
>> So, there's a second part of that
question. Thank you. As well that maybe
I'll let you get to, but before uh that
part, it could be other things I didn't
mention as well, like maybe like
forestry practices upstream or uh
changes in the land um ge geographically
or whatever that the water is not
necessarily making its way down where it
used to uh hydrogeeology or whatever. Um
so there are a number of factors that
could affect that. Um but then it does
raise the question around whether the um provincial legislation sort of
the agreement around the water license
uh is still appropriate given uh where
you know things have changed since that
was put in place. Uh and on that as well
is that the the flow requirement that
does trigger the um the need to put in
watering restrictions that gauge um is measuring the post uh human use
number. Right? So the gauge is past the
intake but we have to provide but the
flow rate that we're expected to provide
based on the provincial uh operating
licenses that happens uh that amount
includes the human use and the EFN right
>> um
>> like what is the what is the number that
we have to provide for the habitat?
>> Yeah. So, so currently the the um based
on ongoing conversations with with the
regulator um with First Nation, there's an ag there's an agreement right
now on a on a temporary basis to
establish the the flow downstream of the
intake. So, the flow in the river from
the intake to the ocean where the gauge
is located is is 1 cubic meter per
second. Um and and so the flow upstream
of the intake is 1 meter per second plus
whatever the community is using at the
time. Um and so so it it's that one
cubic meter per second doesn't include
the community withdrawal. It's it's in
addition to um the community withdrawal
or the community withdrawal is in
addition to that, I guess, is maybe
another way of of putting it. the amount
that you're having that's being released
from the dam um needs to both provide
the community withdrawal as well as
maintain one cubic meter per second.
It's not it's not necessarily it's not
releasing the full 1 cubic meter per
second. There is a contribution from the
base flows in the river that are adding
to that
>> but it's um the the measurement point in
that 1 cubic meter per second.
>> Yeah. I'm talking about the point at
which it's measured.
>> Yeah. uh that being one cubic meter per
second but that one cubic meter per
second sorry are you saying that is
including both uses or just the EFN
>> just the EFN
>> cuz uh somewhere else I think it was in
the report I think it was more around 7
to 0.9
uh and then also the uh if we look back
the the graph that councelor Wood
provided is that in fact prior to the
dam the flow rates were much lower than
even that. So uh and I'm not a
biologist. I know you're not a biologist
either, but I do understand that uh
there is a certain level of uh dynamics
to a river that are natural and that are healthy for habitat uh from the
ecologists that I do speak to. So that
having a continuous flat flow rate
throughout the whole year may not
actually be the the optimal uh habitat
creating flow rate. Um but that may be
the assumption that is being like
current that when that deal was put in
place low those years ago uh that may
have been the science of the time but is
that still the science? So that's where
I'm saying, and this may be beyond your
purview, but um it seems to me that we
may be able to um the fact that the
watering restrictions and the
reliability that this whole report
hinges on is potentially based on the
water license with the province that
itself, and I know staff is looking into
this, may need to be looked at as a way
to actually increase the reliability if
we don't have to put in stage 4 watering
restrictions because it's not due to the
fact that that's the the watering
restrictions aren't based on the the the
use of the community that much as they
are based on the flow in the river. So,
and that water license that the the
letter of the law uh that sort of
bureaucratic requirement that may or may
not be current science. I don't know
this is some ponderings [laughter] and
maybe beyond your purview.
>> Um
I can I'll provide some comments on it u
from from the hydraology side. Um so the
and and sort of based on some of the
previous work that that has been done
and I've been involved with um when so
the the.7
um cubic meters per second that's been
established as the critical
environmental flow need. So that's
essentially it's been established that a
flow below that rate will will
incrementally start to cause uh impacts
to to the habitat. Um so it would kind
of go from it being um uh fair, let's
say, to poor um on a on a scale. Um the
so the the one cubic meter per sec. So,
and then that was established by DFO
back in the '9s when uh the dam was
first constructed.
There was a study done as part of the construction for the new intake that did um habitat simulation modeling
uh for the reach of the river from the
intake to the ocean. And essentially
what that's looking at is what's the
what is the um value of that habitat
from a from a a habit productivity
perspective um versus the flow and and
it's kind of like a hockey stick. It's
it and and interestingly the modeling
was showing that 7 is about right um in
terms of that critical point where that
the the the value of the habitat um for
the different fish species really starts
to drop off. The only one that isn't um
is is the PAR which are sort of that
intermediate stage um of of the fish and
it's really more of a kind of a straight
line. So like for them it's sort of like
more flow is better, right? And so it's
trying to find that happy balance of of
what is um what's appropriate and based
on conversations um with the regulators
and it's not it's not just the
regulatory biologist, it's also the the
fisheries biologists at at the province
and at DFO. Um there's been agreement
that that one cubic meter every second
is is a suitable target. Um, the
original
EFN was established based on a policy. I
I'm not sure of the status of that
policy anymore, but it used to be based
on a metric that was 10% of the mean
annual flow in the river is what the
flow should be. and and that was based
on on some some studies that have been
done across BC and in the states around
looking at what a sort of suitable
target should be and that was what that
was established at. Um I can't remember
the number off the top of my head but I
believe it was about 1.2 was what was
originally established. Um so just in
terms of like that the new one is
actually a little bit below that now. Um
and so yeah, so it's it and also based
on that habitat simulation modeling 1
cubic meter per second uh is a
reasonable target to provide
um reasonable habitat function in the
river but granted it is higher than what
used to be there before in the natural
system. Yeah. And but I can't get into
sort of the benefits of that both sort
of locally for the watershed but also
regionally because it's sort of there's
both of those kind of two two components
to that.
>> Okay. C council I'm going to um we're
striving I I'll be striving to adjourn
by 12:30 but at that time I want time
anyways to make the recommendations as
well. I'm going to take a couple more
questions but please keep it brief if
you can. Councelor P has had his hand
up. Councelor Fra, Councelor Bill, and and councelor Martin. Okay, go. I'll
try to keep mine quick. I just wanted to
know about the spillover of the dam. If
you have any information that we can see
like this where it shows how frequently,
you know, what time periods we've had
that spillover. So, if we're considering
raising the dam, you know, I'd like to
know when is that opportunity and how
much opportunity are we looking at.
>> Um, yeah. So, I think if we go back to
the previous slide, it has the water
levels over time. Um
so this is a short um uh so the so the
orange um the orange and the green lines
are also showing like the median water
levels in the reservoir and when the
reservoir is full at the top of the
graph there that's when it's filling.
though in most years um it does fill but
there are there are some years where it
hasn't and that's that sort of gray dash
line along the bottom that's the minimum
lake level that's ever that's been
recorded on that specific day. So it's
not
>> does this have a time frame associated
with it? Like what are we
>> Yeah.
So the the the lower gray dash line
>> Yeah. is is the minimum water level. And
so there have been there have been years
in the historical record where the lake
hasn't refilled because of limitations
in the inflow. And those would really be
what is what would drive the reliability
for the system. Um so on average, yeah,
there's there there's sufficient there
is sufficient flow. Um but it's those
year-over-year drought conditions where
it wouldn't refill or may not refill. Do
we have any idea how much spillover
we're talking about there too? Because
if it's just reaching the top, it could,
you know, we call it spillover, but with
barely any versus it's spilling over a
ton.
>> Yeah. So the um
again, I'm just going from from memory
from from work, but the so the the total
volume is about nine 9 million cubic
meters. So there's 7 million cubic
meters of active storage and there's two
million cubic meters of of emergency
storage and the reason why it's
emergency storage is because it has a
limited amount of flow that can be
released and it doesn't meet the
environmental flow need target. Um so
there's 9 million cubic meters of total
storage. The average inflow on an annual
basis to the Aerosmith wershed and this
is based on data like before the dam was
constructed. Um, so that's in the 90s I
believe was in around 12 to 14. So, so
it's a fairly like that 9 million is a
pretty large percentage of the the just
the the average. So there's there's that
extra say like
anywhere from four to six million extra
on on average in a in a year, but that's
the average. Yeah. Okay. Councelor Bill
and then councelor Martin.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you
again. Uh, I guess I'm going to go back
to uh, Councelor Gore's sweet spot idea.
And I guess what I'm hoping for, in
fact, what I am hoping for is that we
could eventually end up with uh upland
storage that will be um sufficient to
provide the EFN as well as additional
waters for the community for a longer
period than we have allowing for even no
snowpack but uh longer drought etc.
as well as um looking at our aquifer and
one of the notions in our OCP is that we would be a sustainable city. So
I part of that I think for me means that
we're not actually going to other
aquifers that we're doing everything
that we can to improve the health of the
aquifer that we have and I don't know if
that uh if much of that would be within
phase two if it was with your company.
uh it also may be things that we can be
doing you know at the city level but I
do believe that there's more that we
could be doing but nonetheless uh
looking at that upland storage and
providing more water for the community
should also allow the aquifer to further
recharge as well as additional
conservation methods and I I do think
that we need to continue to look at
conservation and a couple of points that
councelor Gren has made made around you
values and looking going forward in 10,
20, 30 years, you know, what does what
does the ideal yard look like? I don't
know. But is that something that um you
know, having those two parts come
together of both upland storage for the
health of the river and also allowing
for uh a healthier aquifer without
having to go outside the one that we're
using now?
Um did you want to provide comment on
that first side?
>> Sure. Yeah. Um yeah, at this point we're looking at optimizing the existing
groundwater usage within the existing
license volume available.
Um so yeah for the for the long term if
there is a new source storage water
source uh provided or constructed then the groundwater use would would
probably stay similar as it is today and
if we're in a sort of inclining trend or
improving to be more healthy then
hopefully that would continue.
Okay, great.
>> And my understanding is that um that
some of the steps that could be taken
within the city both on city land as
well on private land could in fact
increase the amount of groundwater that
is you know water rainwater that is
going into the ground and that in turn
should also improve the health of local
streams and ultimately get to the river
as well. Would it not?
>> Council. Yeah, absolutely. any um
further storm water storm water
management practices that would
encourage infiltration are definitely of
benefit. And uh and of course the water
conservation in itself to uh to sort of
beef up your existing water conservation
program to to use less water during the
summer months and and allow for it to to
exist where it is.
>> Thank you, Councelor Martin. Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I really uh
would like to see if you would give us
say A, B, or C. What would be the most
not necessarily the cheapest, the most
practical long-term solution to this?
Because I was hoping today that we would
have that because you're the
professionals that know, you've given us
a report, but a decision to understand
what would be best for us. And like
counselor Frazz was saying, not
necessarily the, you know, the cheapest,
but the the wisest for long term because
we're going a long term for this. So, do
you have any solutions that you can give
us? What should we do? Really,
the practical thing, smart thing,
because that's what I would like.
>> Well, you know, a report. This is a big
report and you understand it way more
than any one of us. So what what would
you do if you were making that decision?
>> What would you do?
>> Thank Martin. Um
so
[snorts]
one of the challenges is that
unfortunately there's not kind of a
clear solution in the in the level of
the analysis that was done. Um and so I
think in terms of the decision for me if
it was if it was my decision to be
making um would be to kind of go to that
next step of provide like of of
evaluating the the um options that have
been identified in this preliminary
study um in in a bit more detail. It's
not it's not there isn't sort of a clear
direction at this at this at this point
um because of the um the at the level of
which this study was was preliminary to
kind of set the next stage for that
phase two was to sort of help with
firstly um sort of establishing how much
water is needed um and then and then
secondly start to look at some options
but there's there's more work needed to
be able to to make that final decision.
>> So, you can't give us
options. Okay.
>> Because I know our our citizens are are
concerned and we are and we want to make
sure we're doing the wisest thing.
That's all.
>> So, we have to Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's I'm going to
have to wrap it up. Um these people
probably have other work to go back to
their job, but um council I'm going to
be looking for um a recommendation
resolution anyways um to just my my
belief is we've had a lot of good
comments and there's a lot of
understanding anyways of what is
possible and I understand phase two
there was a list of things that they
could possibly look at would be looking
direction but I'm I'm suggesting at this
particular time that we have KWL look at
the possibilities as We spoke earlier of
just the sidestream storage option which
then once we have that question answered
then there may be some money left over.
Then then we look at what we do with
that information. But we have to have
that as to say that if we had sidestream
storage with reservoir capacity is going
to in charge um protect or improve our
acryers which is one of our goals as
well as council has mentioned which is
good. At the same time, it may delay us
actually have to look for more
groundwater sources at at the same time.
I think we have to have that question
answered first before we make the
decisions before we go anywhere further.
And I I would suggest if we I could make
that recommendation as to continuing on
with phase two as a phased approach and
uh with uh uh phase two would just
consist of that and then that would be
brought back to council with that
information and then we say okay where
are we going to either make this happen
and then we make the recommendations
back. Do I have approval for councel to
second that motion?
Um
yeah yeah yeah for recommendation would
be that uh the KWL look into the options
for the sid stream of the uh excess uh
fall and winter rains to uh provide a
phased approach for reservoirs in the
vicinity of Parksville instead of up on
the highlands. possibly considering
looking at industrial land uh that we
have in our industrial park as a portion
of it as well as mosaic lands which is
the next coastal because we don't have
ground lands here we have privately
owned lands so just looking at those
options first
>> second it
>> thank you council press any
>> this is committ so this recommendation
to council
>> is this just recommendation from cootw
then we'll go to councel
Okay. Um
Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Uh on the motion
on the floor. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Yes. Go ahead, council.
>> Oh, thank you. I'm just wondering if um
is it also make some sense to perhaps
have an alternate recommendation so that
if this one is not supported that
there's something else that would come
forward or are we going to be sort of
prevoting on the recommendation so that
then we have a motion to take to the
actual meeting. I'm sorry I'm not clear
on that. I I agree and having made that
motion, I I think KW understands that
that's what I'm looking for. As council
Martin says, we want a solution and
councelor Martin's right. So we want
your your solution that would include
that and if the side storage
doesn't pan out to be looking like a
good suggestion. And I think KWL is
going to come back and said however
speaking to the solution we recommend
this and and I I think you understand
that's what we're looking at correct is
that guys you know
>> so quick followup one thing that I heard
earlier and correct me if I'm wrong is
that it would be more likely to access
uh provincial or federal funding if we
were going with a one of the other
options that would look at the creation
of upland storage because that in fact
directly affects then the environmental
flow needs and involves DFO etc. Now did
I misunder understand that or was that
correct?
>> I I think that's a possibility but
that's exactly what it is. It's a
possibility that you may get provincial
um uh help on that which is actually was
well I can't comment further because it
was in camera but um uh on another uh
Aerosmith uh meeting the AWS meeting
previous so it's a possibility you're
right councelor Bill councelor Fras go
ahead
>> okay just can I speak on this as a
seconder I think where we're at right
now as a committee to hold that this you
know support this motion because is
looking at an option for it. And since
it wasn't part of the report for us to
then be able to pick through where we're
going to go, I I going to have to have
more information on to where does that
weigh into it. When I look at all these
options and try to think long term, I
think there's going to be more than one
option that's going to come forward over
the years. And so, it's a little bit
more of like which order are we going to
stack them in because I don't think this
is the last time that we're going to be
looking at uh water uh solutions for the
community here. So, as far as side
stream storage, uh, we need to consider
what that looks like. Um, I'm not
supporting this as the option we're
moving forward on. I'm I'm putting into
the pile and then I think we need to be
looking at as in our at our council
table. Uh, but for right now, need more
information on it. I think it's worthy
consideration. I don't understand the
full implications of it. Uh, so I want
to support our committee the whole so
that it can be in the in the mix.
>> Right. Yeah. Thank you. And I agree
100%. Councelor Fazad said if KWL comes
back to us and says sidestream storage
where do you live where the water is is
not an option eliminate it. That's what
I want to hear. That's part of like
let's just take that off the table and
then then we'll look for your other
magic solution you pull up instead of I
have great faith in you guys. Councelor
Dory.
>> Thank you through the mayor to our
delegation. Um, can you perhaps make it
very clear to me was the sidestream
stories your number one option that you
suggested to council because what I saw
in the presentation was Shelton Healey
which was previously identified as one
of the viable options was also presented
and uh thank you councelor Wood for
doing the work on this as well. Um
I would rather prefer us go to that
option uh explore that one further in
addition to looking at raising the
Aerosmith dam which I think staff is
also recommending in the report. Those
would be two options that I would
support at this time. Uh even though it
is just the committee of the whole but I
think [snorts] having the experts you've
already done the work. I did not see the
sidestream options as being the most
viable and I'm sorry if I if I missed
that. It's been a long meeting so
correct me if I'm wrong.
» Yeah. So in terms of
doing going through the multiple
accounts evaluation that we did um those
two options came out a little bit higher
than than fishtail and we had had um
removed the offstream storage as as to go through like at the preliminary
screening stage because of the the costs
and and land like the relative costs and
the land implications. So like the the
highest ranking sites in the were
Shelton and Healey that came out through
the evaluation. So not saying that
that's necessarily again looking at
those individually, it's not necessarily
the total correct solution on a phased
approach, but it it it appeared to be
the correct solutions for in terms of
balancing across all the different
criteria that we're looking at. um in
terms of the the the direction to go.
>> Thank you. If I may follow up.
>> So So if we could rephrase it to say
that the possible solutions could
include looking at the Healey Aerosmith
Dam
>> Shelton Healey Lake and raising the
Aerosmith dam storage.
>> Well, that would be a separate motion
altogether. It looks like CEO. So
>> Oh, hi CEO Kaylor.
>> Sorry to interrupt. Um thank you mayor
through you. Um, I just wanted to remind
council we did have a motion that was
presented that was deferred for
consideration until after the committee
the whole takes place. And so what we
will be looking for at some point is um
kind of what councelor Gore is talking
about and what you've been talking about
mayor Brian is an order of priority for
that phase two. So what we wrote just
for council's recommendation or sorry um
to remind council the recommendation was
that council consider the priorities and
timing for the water use planning and
management study phase 2 scope of work
and it was deferred until after this
committee the whole um and that we would
get a quote from Kerwood Lidell on that
scope. So if there's five things that
council wants um to be advanced, we
would be then working with the
consultant to get a quote on whether
that 430 remainder um meets that budget.
So just as a reminder of kind of the
next step,
>> right? So so I I would hope that with
the amended motion anyways that would do
exactly that.
>> So sorry, mayor. I I think that looks
like CEO, you can correct me, but this
motion is very different than the
original motion from the mayor, which is
a very different direction. So, is it uh
a new motion? We'll have to vote on this
unless uh mayor you want to withdraw and
present this as an option.
>> No, what what it is is actually just
defining instead phase two, the the the
planned one was was a whole bunch of
options. If you look at what it was, it
was huge. Yeah. And including
conservation and piping and
infrastructure and so forth. I don't
want to touch that right now. That's why
I want to define it. We we have to focus
and define this right now people. And if
it means for your satisfaction Yeah. And
that we include the uh possibility of
the Healey Shelton and also across uh
aeros storage. I'm definitely in favor
of amending my motion to that. Councelor
Frazz, do you agree to the amending?
I had a different uh thought and
question here in my go ahead. But also
to amend it though it can we may not
have separate ones come out of here
though like we can have separate op they
don't have to all be brought together
under one. I think your motion to
>> Oh you mean that's what you want two
motions like one?
>> Yeah. I mean we can we can bring
multiple recommendations out of the
committee here and I and I think we
should uh in this case I believe that
we're asking for this information aside
storage. It sounds like you guys had
already done some work on it and it just
didn't meet the criteria that cut. So,
it wasn't included, but it should seem
like an easy one to bring back now if
we're just saying, "Hey, that
information that you put aside. Let's bring it back in the report so we
can look at it." I think that's I think
it's an easy
>> Okay, good suggestion. Let's leave the
original motion on the floor and then
we'll look for another motion on the
floor to do an additional one. Does that
work for you, Council? Y.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Okay. Uh, speaking to the motion on the
floor. Yes. Go ahead, Councelor.
>> Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And given the
fact that when I had read the report
earlier and when we had presentations
earlier and that the sidoom storage was
not recommended due to costs and the
amount of land that would be needed etc.
For all of those reasons with respect to
the mayor I can't support this.
>> Thank you. Uh councelor Wood go ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. I'll start by by saying
I understand uh why the sideream storage
seems to make sense on the surface of it
because we have so much water that flows
down all winter. Hey, can we can we save
some of it? Um, but when I try to get my
head around the amount of water and the
size of the hole that's 3 or 4 meters
deep, um, for the engineering [snorts]
of this, from the people I've spoken to
in this report, it just is prohibitively
expensive with permitting and everything
else. And at first, I thought it was a
good idea, but I just can't support
this. Um I my my take is I'd love to see
this committee make three
recommendations
to uh our regular council meeting. One
is for a water conservation plan. Um and
one is for upland storage. And we need
you know either C or D estimates to get
grants or other funding.
Those could be for raising the existing
Aerosmith Dam as well as Shelton and
Healey Lakes. Um, and then the third one
is to provide some grant research to see
what's available for senior government
funding because what I don't want to see
is the majority of this being on
property taxes. So, those are the three
that I'd like to see, but that's aside
from your motion, but I can't support um
sidestream storage. Thanks.
Don't you think we could include that in
the next phase after we have this
initial like I'm trying to keep it very
simple here councelor wood is I'm trying
to keep it just for the storage and so
forth and then we're going to get that
information back let's either you can't
see it working in reservoirs I have
people advising me on the outside that
it will work okay but I want now the
experts to tell us whether it's possible
to work so let's let them tell us what
it's going to be not our sources on the
outside that say it should work
absolutely Absolutely. Um let's let's
eliminate that or approve it. That's all I'm asking for here. We
can't, you know, um just bypass it and
go to the next phase. That's all. But
anyways, that's that's why I'm it's it's
here. Anyways, so
>> yeah, I'm kind of envisioning to answer
your question, mayor, I'm kind of
envisioning these would probably be two
different RFPs. One is for a company to
do a water conservation plan.
>> No. Um
>> no, no, no, no, no. Not not in this
motion here.
>> No, no, no. that will follow through in
phase two after we get this preliminary
information.
>> Yeah. And then a second RFP for class CD
upland water storage for raising
Aerosent Dam Shelton Healey Lakes. And
then the third motion would just be to
staff to look at um the provincial
funding, but I can't support this motion
as it is. Thanks.
>> Gotcha. Fries.
>> So uh through the mayor council. I think
the important part of this motion though
is that when we move forward from here,
this idea will still exist and the
people that weren't here in the meeting
today or hear that, oh, this, you know,
we we've considered it. We there's
nothing that we can point to and say,
look, there's the work and why it
doesn't why it's not a good option. I
think we need to be able to put it to
bed or it'll just keep resurfacing again
and again. So, this isn't to suggest
that this is the option that we're going
to go with, but if this information
didn't make it to the report, let's
bring it into there so that that we can
cross it off the list. So, we have
something to point to. Otherwise, just
hearsay over and over and it'll keep
coming back for years. Like I said, this
is not going to be the last time we're
dealing with the water uh issue. And I'm
sure this idea will just surface again.
And if it doesn't make the report again,
it we'll just be back to the square one.
So, I think it it let's get the
information and then we can cross it off
the list if it's not if it's really not
going to work out.
>> One more. Uh counc.
>> Yes. Just quick comment to our CEO. We
want all this information. I'm not
against the information, but we are
working with a budget as you mentioned
about $440,000 and I don't want to put
you on the spot to give in a quote on
this. But the more information we seek,
the more we draw into that that money
that we have and if we have these big
options, do you think in your opinion
we'll be able to get that information on
what the three information we we seek
from councelor Wood just mentioned and
the sideream storage would be be able to
get all this information within the
budget for the phase 2 that we have.
if I may through the mayor.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Sorry. Thank you. Um the motion that we
presented to council was to work with
the consultant to get a budget on the
scope that you recommend as council. And
I assume the more work they have to do,
the more money it will cost.
>> Yeah, that's I've already asked that
question. It was very first. I said, can
you do what I asked on the first one
under 431,000?
So why why why go another stand and and we know it it I mean just that
that's why I'm keeping it simple like
not look at all the the conservation
infrastructure requirements because that
maybe would exceed 431,000
we already have that all we're saying is
we we want the the consultants to come
up with something right now because
believe me we're taking huge heat for
these wa these water restrictions that
are in place right now. I tell you, it's
the I can't walk down the street without
people actually
being very upset and disappointed with what we've done by doing nothing.
So these gentlemen here, as council
Martin says, give us a solution. I'm
hoping that they come up with some
alternate solutions and if it means
Morard and Healey and then that's fine
as well. But that's all I want to do at
this committee, the whole meeting today.
I'm going to call the question. All
those in favor of the motion on the
floor.
Those opposed.
Okay, that's great. Okay, we're done.
Okay, I'd like to ask thank you very
much, gentlemen, for everything that
you've done here today and u we'll
you'll be hearing from us sometime in
the future, I guess.
Thank you.
>> I would like to make a subsequent motion
now.
>> No, I'm calling for a German uh like a
motion to adjurnn.
There needs to be recommendation to the
council.
I would like to uh make a motion that
council look at perhaps Shelton and
Healey Lake as a upland storage option
and further that u council direct staff
to look at raising the capacity of the
airmith dam and further looking at uh
the conservation guidelines
uh
conservation guidelines for the
community including residential,
commercial and the resort areas
something along those lines. Thank you.
» Yeah.
No.
Is there a second?
>> I'll second that.
>> Council Frazz, go ahead.
>> Okay. Council, uh, we have these Sean
notes prepared here. I was really hoping
to hear uh, things come out of it
because I I liked what I was reading out
of here, too. Uh, so this motion kind of
dips into that as well. Um
maybe maybe Sean can speak to this. I
was hoping he'd have a chance to raise a
motion first.
>> Counc. Thank you, mayor. I did uh send
staff uh motions for these. Um the first
one is motion one, water conservation
plan. that the committee the whole
recommend that council direct staff to
include in the scope of phase 2 water
use planning and management study the
preparation of a compre comprehensive
water conservation plan consistent with
recommendation three of phase one of the
final report um procured separately from
a qualified water conservation
specialist with a scope including risk
benefit cost analysis of advanced
metering infrastructure smart meters
including leak detection and payback a
review of the city's water rate
structure including tiered pricing
options that keep water for health,
hygiene, and fire suppression affordable
while pricing discretionary use to
reflect its cost. An American Waterworks
Association M36 water audit and water
loss management plan, rainwater
retention and aquifer recharge measures
on city properties.
>> How about just do your your last two?
Let's not do all the background
information.
>> Yeah. So, the motions are
>> of order. The problem is that we
actually have a motion on the floor
unless councelor Gore would like to
withdraw that and we could have one
other
>> I'm happy to have that those motions
that looks like there those are exactly
the line of thought that I have. So I'm
happy to include those three
>> mayor. The short ones are definitely in
what's in front of you, but I just
wanted to make sure that the motions
capture the detail of what we need.
>> Are are you talking about the ask that
phase 2 be
>> scoped as two two jobs? Is that what
you're saying?
>> Yes. Yes, that's that one.
>> Yes.
>> Is that what you're talking about?
>> Uh in addition, there will be uh the
increasing the storage capacity at
Aerosmith Dam.
>> Yes. So that has been added since these
notes because we did discuss it today.
» It's a third anyways. Yeah.
>> So
>> I don't know what
>> the motion on the floor unless councelor
Wood wants to make it is the
conservation plan be uh provided. Uh
second design and costing of the upland
storage at Shelton and Heily lakes and
third would be increasing the capacity
at Aerosmith dam would be including the
scope of phase two.
» I'm not sure how we can add more details
to that later if that works.
>> That's an opportunity.
>> Would you agree to adding uh checking of
the side streams that I messaged
>> adding three to get my support
>> if the budget allows within the budget?
I and the timelines if we can meet if it
does if the information is already
available you've mentioned you've looked
at this u it does not uh like I said
take too much of our budget that we have
and the timeline uh I'll include that as
number four
>> well then then I suggest if we add the
size room storage as well into number
three and then but make it to achieve a
budget for uh the following three. I do
have a procedural question for staff.
Like since we just voted down the exact
motion, like should it it appropriate to
include this in in this motion now? And
>> um if I may, we're in committee, so this
has to be endorsed by council anyway. Um
and I think it's fair because it's kind
of a scope thing. So if it's all four of
those things, again, our plan is to work
with KWL to confirm that whatever
priorities you vote on as a council,
>> that that's within the budget. and if
not come back and tell you what
additional budget might be needed.
>> Thank you to clarify that would be the last of the priorities in case we
are not in the budget that should be
excluded if you're not able to get in
the budget with sidestream storage.
» It would it would be based on all four
of those things if that's okay because
that's just
>> if all four of those things.
>> Okay,
>> I'll second that. Okay,
thank you.
Everybody know the motion that's on the
farm?
>> Yes, you do. Or you want to
>> just a question through yourself to
staff if I may. Mayoring your motion.
>> Are these um are these new RFPs or
they're going to be within the current
contract with KWL?
>> If I may, I think we can sort that out
before the council meeting. Um it
depends on what council's intent is. We
have current budget and a current amount
allocated for phase 2. um we would have
to work with KWL to make sure that that
whatever you're asking is within their
expertise and within a reasonable time
frame and that it's work they can do. Um
so it's not really a definitive
decision. Um council is basically voting
on the priorities and they're going to
get them costed and come back to you.
>> Does that work? Okay. All those in
favor?
Thank you. And those opposed? Councelor
Gren is opposed. Thank you. Carries.
Maybe it can go now. I don't know. I'd
like to ask for a mo a motion to
adjurnn, please. Uh moved by councelor
France, a second by councelor Wood. All
those in favor? Thank you. Committee is
now adjourned. Thank you.