[0:03] Good morning everyone and welcome to the
[0:05] July 20th special committee of the whole
[0:08] meeting. The city of Parksville
[0:10] recognizes the people of the coalish
[0:12] nations and their traditional territory
[0:14] upon which we gather with gratitude.
[0:17] Up front we have uh one report on the
[0:19] agenda along with a presentation from
[0:21] consultants KWL uh for the manager of
[0:24] utilities an update on the water use
[0:26] planning and management study phase one.
[0:29] Uh do we have that delegation right now
[0:37] before we move forward?
[0:46] I see them here. So I because we're
[0:49] looking for approval to uh go to the
[0:52] next one since the only thing ne next on
[0:54] the agenda. So um are you gentlemen
[0:57] appearing at the podium here? Welcome.
[1:00] Come on down sir. Yeah nice to see you
[1:01] again.
[1:17] green.
[1:18] >> You are now if you could introduce
[1:19] yourself, gentlemen, and uh we'll get
[1:21] with ready. Looking forward to your
[1:22] presentation today. Thank you.
[1:24] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Steve Bridger
[1:27] with the with Kerwood Lidell Consulting.
[1:29] Uh and I am the project manager for the
[1:32] uh water use planning and management
[1:34] study.
[1:36] And uh yeah, I'm Craig Southerntherland
[1:38] with Kerwood Lidle uh Associates and I'm
[1:41] senior hydraologist and and uh technical
[1:44] engineer on the supply side for the for
[1:47] the study.
[1:47] >> Great. Welcome.
[1:50] >> Thank you.
[1:52] Yeah, we have a a brief
[1:54] presentation to start and then
[1:56] understand that there's a number of uh
[1:58] questions uh to go through uh for the
[2:01] remainder of the meeting.
[2:05] Yes,
[2:06] if we could hold our questions uh until
[2:08] after the presentation, council, and
[2:10] then we'll get into it a little more
[2:12] detail then. Thank you.
[2:15] >> Sounds great.
[2:17] >> Um okay, so here's the cover cover slide
[2:21] for the uh study and maybe we can jump
[2:24] to uh slide number one, please.
[2:27] Uh so just to do a an overview of the
[2:30] goals of the project as per the um
[2:34] request for proposal as as it was stated
[2:37] initially uh was to review and complete
[2:40] a comprehensive assessment of the city's
[2:43] the city and the Englishman River water
[2:45] supply uh source audible w audible water
[2:50] sources as well as um the demand and
[2:54] future demand for the city along with uh
[2:56] the noose area
[2:59] um which the system all feeds. Um so
[3:03] essentially um there was a capacity
[3:05] analysis to determine what the how we're
[3:09] going to how we can meet the future
[3:11] demands and a review of uh this existing
[3:14] storage including surface water sources
[3:17] and groundwater sources to see what is
[3:20] needed to service the system over a
[3:22] 50-year time frame
[3:25] including the obviously the current
[3:28] conditions.
[3:29] Um, additionally, the report was uh to
[3:32] focus on existing water conservation
[3:34] measures and what measures can be
[3:37] further implemented to uh assist with
[3:40] reducing water demand in the future as
[3:44] well as take a brief look at the
[3:45] hydropower generation options if there
[3:48] was to be a new uh surface water source
[3:50] implemented. So, that's that's
[3:53] summarized in our report which I believe
[3:55] was circulated uh about a month ago.
[3:59] Um and just to touch on the key water
[4:02] supply reliability
[4:04] um focus for the system. Um everything
[4:08] was studied under um the need to meet
[4:12] sort of um um I guess best practices for
[4:18] water supply reliability.
[4:21] uh and taking a detailed look at what
[4:22] the current system water reliability is
[4:25] and and the system effectively or today
[4:28] the Aerosmith reservoir is the primary
[4:31] source with an effective volume of uh 9
[4:33] million cubic meters and approximately 2
[4:37] million cubic meters in sort of
[4:39] emergency storage.
[4:42] Um there's also further um sort of restraint on the
[4:48] system in needing to provide up to
[4:51] approximately 1 cubic meters a second as
[4:53] an environmental flow in the Englishman
[4:56] River which has been uh in place for a
[4:58] while. I think it's closer to 1.6
[5:01] typically but and that does vary
[5:04] depending on the uh the sort of absolute
[5:07] minimum that can be provided.
[5:09] Um and the study was done primarily
[5:14] looking at uh not enacting water level 4
[5:18] water conservation measures because we
[5:20] want to look at uh more typical water
[5:22] supply system where you don't want to be
[5:25] having to implement water water
[5:27] restrictions to that level on a regular
[5:29] basis which obviously is a is a
[5:31] significant goal.
[5:34] Um,
[5:36] >> so from there I may hand it over to
[5:37] Craig who's going to go through some
[5:39] more detail on the immediate analysis
[5:42] within the study.
[5:45] >> Thanks. Thanks.
[5:47] >> Thank you, Steve. And, uh, yeah, thank
[5:49] you, mayor and council for having us. Um
[5:52] so I know um
[5:56] there were some questions um about the
[5:59] storage evaluation and we just wanted to
[6:02] go through both how were the um new
[6:06] sources screened, what did we sort of
[6:08] use as the original sort of screening
[6:10] criteria and then how were they
[6:11] evaluated. Um so the in terms of
[6:15] screening we focused on storage
[6:18] opportunities within the the Englishman
[6:21] River wershed and the local aquifers. Uh
[6:25] so we weren't sort of looking out beyond
[6:27] in terms of like re like looking at it
[6:29] sort of regionally. It was really
[6:30] focused on what's available for for the
[6:32] city and for the news. um and with a
[6:35] focus on the Englishman River wershed.
[6:37] Um we had um and that was sort of
[6:41] through through um conversations with staff. Um we the the reliability
[6:48] target uh was established at 29 out of
[6:51] 30 years or or 90% reliable and that was
[6:54] based on a review of some of the
[6:57] guidelines that are available and what
[7:00] other communities are doing um around
[7:02] the region and and again that was um
[7:05] based on some discussions that we had um
[7:07] at workshops with with staff. And then
[7:11] finally um was it technically feasible
[7:14] um looking at topography like gravity
[7:17] versus pumping storage um and and just
[7:20] sort of other technical uh technical
[7:22] criteria. That was sort of the initial
[7:24] screening evaluation. And then we did a multiple a preliminary multiple
[7:30] accounts evaluation looking at um or the the storage options that were
[7:36] selected.
[7:38] Looking at um capital costs, uh the um
[7:43] construction feasibility,
[7:45] technical feasibility, um regulatory
[7:48] risks, environmental benefits costs. um
[7:50] but at a sort of semi-quantitative
[7:52] level. So sort of assigning like okay
[7:55] high to low. It wasn't it wasn't a sort
[7:57] of a a detailed evaluation but it was to
[8:00] be able to provide a way of being able
[8:01] to rank the different options. Um and
[8:06] we um so I think maybe Steve can slide
[8:09] over to the next slide there.
[8:12] Um yeah. So based on that um we
[8:17] identified uh um
[8:21] four wersheds within the um subwaterheds
[8:27] within the Englishman River wershed and
[8:30] five potential storage locations um that
[8:34] are all sort of headwater storage
[8:36] similar to the way that Aerosmith works.
[8:39] Um and
[8:42] a lot most of these had been identified
[8:45] previously in previous studies in terms
[8:48] of um from the like the past regional
[8:51] studies and main the main reason for
[8:53] that is they're they're the kind of
[8:55] locations where there's either an
[8:58] existing lake or there's an area where
[9:01] the topography works that for every
[9:04] incremental height of a dam that you
[9:05] need to construct you get quite a bit of
[9:07] storage. So that was sort of the main
[9:08] focus is to try and find those those
[9:10] locations um to come up with sort of the
[9:13] best um unit cost per cubic meter of
[9:18] storage. And um and those
[9:22] similar to the past studies kind of came
[9:24] up with the same locations. Um and so
[9:28] those were sort of the main primary
[9:30] ones. In addition, we did we did look at
[9:34] the option to raise Aerosmith and we did
[9:37] look at side side storage um side um
[9:43] off channel riverside storage options
[9:45] and and I'll go through that in in a
[9:47] minute or two here. Um but the
[9:50] essentially these of these five options
[9:56] um four of them the costs are all like
[10:00] they're in the same ballpark especially
[10:02] given the way that these cost estimates
[10:04] were developed. They're preliminary at
[10:06] this point and it's really order of
[10:07] magnitude just to give us a sort of an
[10:09] order of magnitude sense and so we've
[10:13] except for Morardi Creek which is
[10:16] significantly more
[10:18] um and so the outcome of that was to
[10:21] focus on those four options as part of
[10:26] future evaluation.
[10:29] One thing to keep in mind is when we
[10:31] were doing the evaluation, we looked at
[10:33] each storage site individually. We said,
[10:36] can this site alone provide and meet the
[10:39] reliability target? We didn't get into
[10:42] the looking at can we combine them? Can
[10:46] we phase it? We we didn't get into that
[10:49] level of detail and in phase one. Um so
[10:51] there's there may be some opportunities
[10:53] for that moving forward. Um so yeah the
[10:57] next slide. Um so the other source of
[11:02] supply for Parksville is uh is
[11:05] groundwater um in aquifer 216
[11:09] and there's our groundwater
[11:12] hydraologist. I'm a surface water
[11:14] hydraologist so I can speak at a high
[11:16] level around some of this but um our
[11:19] groundwater hydraologist identified that
[11:20] there is maybe some some potential for
[11:24] additional um withdrawal from from the
[11:27] aquifer. uh the acryer t like appears
[11:31] right now to be able to recover based on
[11:33] its current um uh withdrawal rates and
[11:37] so there might be some potential there
[11:39] to provide some additional um flow from
[11:42] the aquifer to help support the demand
[11:44] in the community to help reduce the the
[11:46] demand on the river. Um there were also
[11:50] two other aquifers that are located
[11:55] about 8 to 10 km um south of the city
[12:00] that could also potentially be a new
[12:02] source of groundwater. Um but there's
[12:04] very there isn't a lot of information on
[12:06] those and so there would need to be
[12:07] further study done to to confirm that.
[12:11] Um
[12:14] so in terms of the off channel storage
[12:18] um so we looked at two. So the the first
[12:21] that we looked at was an applesto apples
[12:25] comparison
[12:26] with the um the other storage sites. So
[12:30] the other storage locations there was
[12:33] storage required both for um the
[12:36] community withdrawal as well as meeting
[12:39] the the environmental flow need. Um and bringing those both up to the 90
[12:45] 97%. Um and so just to look at it sort
[12:50] of in terms of the the equal cost um
[12:52] there's it requires um a res a reservoir
[12:57] between 100 or 80 to 160 hectares
[13:00] depending on the um the geometry of the
[13:05] pond. So, how essentially how deep can
[13:07] it can it physically be? And um the
[13:11] intent would be to either divert water
[13:14] into it or pump water into it through
[13:17] the winter and then use that water in
[13:19] the summer. And the rate that that would
[13:22] need to be to fill that is about um 22
[13:25] million liters per day. And for
[13:27] comparison, the current pump station is
[13:32] um uh
[13:34] >> 16. Yeah, 16 or 19. Like the the the
[13:38] pump station's 19. Um and uh so just in
[13:43] terms of a comparison. Um and and so
[13:46] that would be running um at that rate
[13:49] for 6 months um to to fill it. And the
[13:53] construction estimate was about 72
[13:55] million. Um so it's about $15 um per
[13:58] cubic meter and whereas the other
[14:00] surface water stoages were sort of
[14:02] between like a dollar 70 to $5 a cubic
[14:05] meter depending on the site. So just in
[14:07] terms of a comparison um just to give
[14:10] you sort of a sense um let me just
[14:12] double check. I've got the uh um
[14:18] the sizes here. Um
[14:27] so
[14:29] the um 4.8 million cubic meters. If you
[14:35] think about the size of um of Wrath
[14:39] Driver Park, um the whole park, it's
[14:43] about four meters of water over that
[14:46] area, just to kind of give you a sense
[14:47] of scale. Um and and so so it's a bit
[14:52] it's a big area. Um and and so that's
[14:54] kind of that's one of the reasons. Um so
[14:56] if we go to the next the next slide.
[15:00] So another option um would be so what is
[15:04] the demand that the communities will
[15:07] need through the summer um by the 2080s
[15:11] um and this was assuming the current
[15:14] withdrawal rates from the groundwater um
[15:17] and it's about 2.9 u million cubic
[15:19] meters for and that's from June to
[15:22] October which is sort of typically the
[15:25] operating period for the dam and so that
[15:29] would essentially mean not withdrawing
[15:31] any water from the river over that
[15:33] period. And for that case again it's
[15:38] about 50 hectares to 100 hectares again
[15:41] depending on the depth that you can get
[15:43] to. And um it's closer to about it's
[15:46] just a little bit less than the current
[15:47] in terms of pumping rate. It's a little
[15:49] bit less than the current pump station
[15:50] for 6 months. Um they estimate again
[15:54] high level estimate is about 44 million
[15:57] approximately.
[15:59] um and uh and then compar comparison to
[16:01] the other ones. So based on that was we
[16:04] sort of um concluded that just for cost
[16:09] reasons as well as for land reasons um
[16:11] in terms of both the cost of land the
[16:14] value of land as well as land use
[16:16] considerations um that that it just it
[16:19] wasn't economically feasible to sort of
[16:21] pursue those options. Um so that was the reason kind of in going
[16:26] through the report. We could have
[16:28] expanded on that a little bit more in
[16:29] the report. Um so apologies for that. Um
[16:32] but this provides a bit of background on
[16:34] yeah on on the on the reasoning for it.
[16:37] So um
[16:39] so kind of continuing on um we also uh
[16:44] in terms of increasing storage at at
[16:47] Aerosmith
[16:49] uh it would be so there's two parts of
[16:53] this. One is the in the long term um
[16:58] relying solely on Aerosmith because of
[17:00] the limited watershed area um isn't going to be able to meet that
[17:05] reliability target just because of the
[17:07] limited inflow to the reservoir um
[17:10] through the even through the through the winter um
[17:14] it is a it is small it's it's like one
[17:17] and a half% of the whole wershed area
[17:20] and so however Um there there could be
[17:25] an opportunity in terms of phasing to to
[17:28] raise the dam as a first step, but and
[17:31] then that would help sort of provide
[17:34] some improvement in the reliability.
[17:37] Um and then move on to a a a more a
[17:41] larger uh raising a larger increase in
[17:45] the storage based on on a more detailed
[17:48] evaluation of a sort of a phasing
[17:50] option.
[17:52] the what this would mean is be raising
[17:54] the dam by about three meters. Um and um
[17:58] again it wasn't considered more in phase
[18:00] one on its own because it just wouldn't
[18:02] meet the reliability target in the
[18:03] future. Um but as I say in the slide it
[18:06] could be considered as part of a phasing
[18:08] in the future potentially.
[18:11] Uh and the yeah the the cost for this is
[18:16] sort of in the probably the 5 to 10
[18:18] million kind of range. Um or um just
[18:23] without sort of
[18:26] because there would likely need to be
[18:28] sort of some additional upgrades to the
[18:30] dam besides just raising the crest of it
[18:32] um from a stability standpoint and
[18:34] seismic standpoint. Um so that was uh
[18:39] so on the next slide please. Um yeah and so this is just some other
[18:48] background information um for this study
[18:51] and we can refer to these um in through
[18:55] the rest of the meeting if we need to.
[18:57] Um there's some extra slides here just
[19:00] that we can go to if we need to to to
[19:02] refer to anything. Um,
[19:06] oh yeah. Um, yeah, classic. Again, the
[19:10] gray doesn't show up. Um, so, so this
[19:13] is, yeah, [laughter]
[19:16] so on the side it does, it doesn't show
[19:17] up on the front. Um, so this is a
[19:20] similar side. This is the same slide
[19:21] that we showed previously and it
[19:23] essentially shows like the contributions
[19:26] of the different components in the um of
[19:30] flow in the Englishman River. The gray
[19:32] is the natural base flow. That's just
[19:33] how much is naturally coming off the
[19:34] watershed. The um the blue is what the
[19:39] withdrawal is at the plant. Um the the
[19:42] green is is how much the the dam um is
[19:47] releasing to support the environmental
[19:49] flow needs and and the orange um which
[19:52] is tiny little silver um is are the
[19:54] other licenses. Um, and
[19:58] so this just kind of go gives you a
[19:59] sense of the range of the of of flows
[20:03] that are in the river and and really
[20:04] does show like there are opportunities
[20:06] for for being able to um like there's a lot of water in the winter um
[20:13] further down in the wershed. Um but it's
[20:16] the challenge is trying to capture that
[20:17] water further up in the waterershed
[20:19] where there are the opportunities to
[20:20] provide the storage. Um,
[20:25] and this slide is showing uh just a
[20:29] little bit more of a detail through the
[20:30] summer operating period breaking down uh
[20:33] it's essentially taking those four
[20:35] months through the summer and just
[20:36] providing a little bit more detail. So
[20:38] you can really see that the the green
[20:40] part of the pie is the environmental
[20:43] flow need and that's
[20:45] um how much the dam releases from the
[20:48] dam or supporting the environmental flow
[20:50] need in the river. So a large part of
[20:51] the water in the in the dam is is um
[20:54] supporting the environmental flow need
[20:57] with the blue part of the pie being how much is being withdrawn by the
[21:01] community during the operating season.
[21:06] Um yeah, and then this final slide is is
[21:08] showing the uh um the reliability
[21:13] amounts for the current um system and sort of moving out into the future
[21:18] with the reliability sort of decreasing
[21:20] over time um with climate change um and
[21:24] with increasing demand in the community
[21:29] from sort of it's it's essentially about
[21:32] half in terms of the reliability number
[21:34] by the time you reach the the 2080s.
[21:40] And um yeah, and that's
[21:50] you did
[21:51] >> and thank you. Thank thanks very much
[21:55] gentlemen for your presentation and I
[21:57] understand that I want to um qualify
[22:00] that the last three years has been an
[22:03] incredible learning curve for all of us
[22:06] here at the table recognizing from our
[22:08] participation on in the AWS boards as
[22:11] well as the AWS boards understanding
[22:15] what our water where it comes from and
[22:18] where it goes to and what the province
[22:20] is telling us what we must provide for
[22:22] habitat and so forth.
[22:24] Under these learnings that we have, we
[22:27] recognize that Aerosmith Dam is pretty
[22:29] well reserved. So we can maintain the
[22:31] flow rate is actually reserved for
[22:34] habitat and which is great from an
[22:38] environmental point of view but for a
[22:41] point of view from who paid for that dam
[22:43] and so forth it's not so great because
[22:45] it was a water users in the in the
[22:48] system uh including Parksville and the
[22:50] news with our our participating
[22:52] collaboration with them. So, that was
[22:55] one big learning curve that kind of
[22:59] what's with all that water in there, why
[23:01] don't we just release that? Why are we
[23:02] going into um water conservation extreme
[23:05] stage 4 now? And it's been a hard
[23:08] message for the public to understand.
[23:10] It's a hard message for me to understand
[23:13] quite honestly. So um we we are
[23:16] considering uh constantly looking at
[23:19] maybe there's a more equitable way of
[23:21] who's paying for the operation and uh uh
[23:24] upgrades to the dam which is needed
[23:26] including seismic and everything else.
[23:28] we check on a regular basis and maybe we
[23:30] have some participation from other
[23:32] players such as a province which we will
[23:34] look at at but recognizing that any of
[23:37] your suggestions for storage that says
[23:39] Aerrol Smith Dam I say no no no because
[23:41] whatever we put into it type of thing
[23:43] we're not going to get out of it but you
[23:45] know the habitat is going to be very
[23:47] wellmaintained which is great but at the
[23:49] same time I think that that's for others
[23:51] to do we are our end goal as you
[23:54] mentioned anyways from the very I think
[23:56] Steve mentioned it that Um, conservation
[23:59] is not what we're trying to do here.
[24:01] We're trying to get away from
[24:03] conservation by creating satisfactory
[24:05] storage water that's going to meet our
[24:07] needs for today's growth as well as
[24:09] future growth. And that is the end goal.
[24:12] And so, so we're looking forward to um
[24:15] moving forward on with phase two. Uh,
[24:17] and that's what we're here for today to
[24:19] kind of decide where we're going to go
[24:21] from here on in. And my my understanding
[24:24] is is very um clear now as to what's
[24:28] that u storage is and and as far as the other lakes go. Uh the other lakes
[24:35] if we were to go for the Highland Lakes
[24:37] the Mararti and all the rest of it if we
[24:38] were go them they're still using the
[24:40] Englishman River as a transportation
[24:42] main uh as the the delivery system. And
[24:47] once again, I feel that anything that
[24:48] comes out of those, once again, the
[24:50] province is going to say, "Well, we want even more of that." And I'm
[24:54] afraid that getting a water license to
[24:56] get out of those other lakes is going to
[24:58] be the same situation we ran into a so
[25:00] I'm reluctant to go that gentlemen. I'm
[25:03] still at at at the point in my mind
[25:05] after everything I've heard that the
[25:07] best thing that we can do is capture
[25:10] that that winter u excess water that uh
[25:14] falls of rain and precipitation in the
[25:16] winter and capture that and store it
[25:18] somehow. You've mentioned some really
[25:21] good ideas. Give us an idea what kind of
[25:23] looks like other than expropriating Rath
[25:25] Trevor Park and putting the reservoir
[25:27] there, you know, because
[25:28] >> there we go. We know that size works. uh
[25:31] turned it into an aqua park instead of a
[25:33] camping park maybe. Um but uh it gives
[25:37] me the idea of the size. Um my my
[25:40] question would be um with after having
[25:42] talks with Mosaic and so forth, mosaic
[25:45] lands would be more satisfactory
[25:48] um to use as side storage mosaic lands
[25:52] adjacent to the indisman river which is
[25:54] going to provide the sidream storage
[25:56] flow if possible. the mosaic lands being
[25:59] relatively close to us, you know, like
[26:01] as close to us as possible would be the plan because it's all about
[26:05] cost, but they have a lot of land like
[26:08] as you say the size of Brass Harbor. Uh
[26:10] recently, um the RDN just purchased
[26:13] Hamilton Marsh. Um how many hectares was
[26:16] that the council? Do you remember?
[26:18] >> It was a lot. Yeah. for about $30
[26:20] million. They purchased it. But um part
[26:23] of the reason for that uh cost was
[26:25] because it's uh the land the logging
[26:27] value of it, the the tree value. And so
[26:30] but there's a lot of areas that Mosaic
[26:32] have already logged way closer to us to
[26:35] our city Lemonson, you know, actually
[26:37] right where their uh offices are and so
[26:39] forth that may be more palatable to
[26:42] putting in storage reservoirs where they
[26:44] could take advantage of the side stream.
[26:46] So what I would like my preference at
[26:49] this point is to evaluate silicide
[26:52] stream storage options and maybe not in just one reservoir but using it would
[26:56] have to be mosaic lands as the first
[26:58] suggestion uh adjacent to us and and is
[27:02] one reservoir in or or do we use
[27:04] multiples? Do we use you know 1 2 3 4
[27:07] you know with the overflow going to uh
[27:09] it gets the cost down apparently by
[27:12] instead of making one huge one the size
[27:14] of raster park. Um but at the same time
[27:16] it it it and gives um better um failure
[27:20] against um uh
[27:23] preventing failure of one of one of the
[27:25] reservoirs I think you have the backups
[27:26] as well. I would like that to be
[27:29] explored anyway. So what that would look
[27:31] like, what that and how adjacent to it.
[27:33] And once again, um that as well as the
[27:37] other option of
[27:39] what would it take to uh purchase land
[27:42] within uh the industrial park that we
[27:44] already looked at. So we already own
[27:46] some land in there. There's other pieces
[27:47] of land. They're up for sale type of
[27:49] thing. Is there an advantage to that?
[27:51] And what is it? if we actually uh deepen
[27:53] the excavation in that area type of
[27:55] thing. If we have to buy a few bundles
[27:58] of property, you know, five and 10
[27:59] million dollars each, you know, that
[28:00] that's a lot better than getting it from
[28:02] the highlands up on top. That is my hope
[28:05] that we could have in the this next
[28:07] phase is considering those two as well
[28:11] as um checking out the possibilities of
[28:15] um um subsurface wealth so far. I know
[28:19] um Greg you mentioned anyways that
[28:20] you're a surface water hydraologist and
[28:22] I appreciate that. Um but just consider
[28:25] those other acryers that you they may
[28:27] provide some some additional uh flow at
[28:30] the same time which could either be put
[28:32] uh piped to the ERWS or you know into a
[28:35] storage system as well. So that was my
[28:38] two thoughts that I hope that you could
[28:41] do and and I understand everything that
[28:43] you've done in the first phase was all
[28:45] about the data. you've done an amazing
[28:48] job on that.
[28:49] given all the data what we have and
[28:51] where it comes from and actually you
[28:53] know express that very well but we also
[28:56] know that we will need more storage
[28:58] water and the reason I keep on saying I
[29:00] want storage water from the sides
[29:02] streaming storage is because
[29:05] unlike the wells this doesn't affect
[29:08] other areas
[29:10] around us their acryer if we're just
[29:13] taking the winter rains and so forth
[29:14] we're not affecting the acryers if we if
[29:17] we overuse or drill more wells type of
[29:19] thing. Our drilling of those wells could
[29:21] actually impact our neighbors and that
[29:23] is not a good neighbor policy in my
[29:26] mind. And so I think that the sid stream
[29:29] has all the benefits. The water's there.
[29:30] We just have to learn how to capture.
[29:32] So, I also sub subscribe to Water Canada
[29:36] the magazine because I'm kind of a water
[29:40] a nerd and so um uh w with that in mind
[29:44] I know that there's very options across
[29:46] Canada and so forth that have been
[29:47] implemented uh other ways of capturing
[29:50] water or stored or reservoir water if
[29:54] that those other options you know maybe
[29:56] borrow some ideas from everyone else
[29:57] that would be good if we could look at
[29:59] that same time.
[30:00] >> Yeah. Anyhow, that's just my comments. I
[30:02] going to let let it open the floor. That
[30:04] that's so so that kind of sums up where
[30:06] I would hope phase two goes. Um,
[30:09] everything else that you're suggesting,
[30:10] I say just stop until we get that done
[30:13] first. Uh, and no pressure, guys, but we
[30:16] don't have a long time left on our term.
[30:19] >> No pressure. Uh, but at the same time,
[30:22] um, I'm just your comments on that. Is
[30:24] that something that is doable or or or
[30:26] is there any more clarification you
[30:28] need? what I I was hoping to get or
[30:32] >> um no I think that it's clear I think
[30:34] yeah so it definitely in terms of
[30:36] looking at it as a phased approach or
[30:39] options um is is something to to look
[30:42] into
[30:42] >> and and that's exactly you you came up
[30:44] with the term musling as a phased
[30:46] approach first phase is create this one
[30:49] the second phase we create the next one
[30:51] which will give us that um that
[30:53] sufficient storage but it's going to be
[30:55] done over phase period type of thing
[30:56] because um that's the best way to do it
[30:58] anyways is that um with any any major
[31:01] project like this.
[31:02] >> Yeah.
[31:02] >> So, yeah, I appreciate that that intent.
[31:05] Yeah. Thank you. Um
[31:08] council,
[31:10] >> first up, uh Council Gren, you reaching
[31:13] for your mic? You want to go? I don't
[31:15] know. I'm just guessing. Unless you want
[31:17] to call a coffee break.
[31:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I've had too much
[31:20] coffee.
[31:22] >> Sure. I'll go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Uh
[31:25] thank you, Mr. Mayor. and through you to
[31:27] our delegation. Thank you very much for
[31:30] all the work and thanks for coming back
[31:31] today for this uh committee the whole. I
[31:33] hope that there's an opportunity for a
[31:34] bit more of a kind of free conversation
[31:37] in this format. So feel free to treat it
[31:39] that way. I think if um if you have
[31:41] anything you want to jump in on or add
[31:43] to the the conversation. Um so yeah,
[31:47] thank you very comprehensive report and
[31:48] I appreciate the update uh on this. Um,
[31:52] in terms of I guess maybe I have a lot
[31:55] of questions around everything, but
[31:57] maybe I'll just start with kind of the
[31:59] overarching um question, which is kind
[32:02] of the goal of this meeting is what
[32:04] would you see as being um
[32:08] the the best way to structure a second
[32:11] phase of this process to get the best
[32:13] value out of that uh process? uh the
[32:17] first phase seems to me to and I think
[32:20] this is what you're speaking about look
[32:22] at uh what's a single source that we can
[32:26] use to make up for the the demand and
[32:29] the the reliability that we're
[32:30] targeting. Um but there's also
[32:33] conversation about maybe multiple
[32:35] approaches uh to to hit that reliability
[32:38] instead of a single. So with that
[32:41] context, what would you say would you
[32:43] would recommend having now done the
[32:45] first phase for us to get the best value
[32:47] of the second phase?
[32:53] » Thanks again. That's it's good to be
[32:56] here. Um uh so there's two parts of that
[33:01] um that sort of in in sort of
[33:03] conversations internally and
[33:04] conversations with staff. Um the first
[33:07] is the technical side. So the first is
[33:09] looking at okay what are are kind of
[33:12] come up with sort of do the assessment
[33:14] again in terms of come up with a long
[33:16] list of potential combinations of those
[33:18] options and and and and potentially some
[33:21] others um and look at what are some
[33:26] options to move forward on a phased
[33:28] approach. So that's part of it and then
[33:30] the other part is to start an an
[33:33] engagement process
[33:35] with um other interested parties um
[33:40] around
[33:42] the discussion around okay there is the
[33:44] cost but there are other there are other
[33:47] values to be measured or to understand
[33:49] in terms of the location. What are some
[33:52] potentially environmental impacts? um
[33:55] just to be able to work um
[33:58] collaboratively
[34:00] in coming up with that selection. Yes,
[34:01] there's the technical side. There's sort
[34:04] of in terms of technical feasibility,
[34:05] but there are the other um there are the
[34:07] other components that would also need to
[34:10] be considered as part of that process.
[34:13] And having um the other interested
[34:16] parties involved in those conversations
[34:18] would be important at this stage because
[34:20] there may be some that are just they may
[34:22] be a technical solution, but maybe
[34:23] there's an a non-starter because of
[34:26] other other situations. So, that could
[34:29] just drop off the table right away.
[34:31] Maybe teasing into the values question
[34:33] there is uh one of the uh maybe one of
[34:38] the overarching values is to what extent
[34:40] do we need to provide uh water for
[34:43] outdoor use? Um and at what point in the
[34:48] decades moving forward
[34:51] do we hit a point where the the uh
[34:53] indoor use is actually now kind of at
[34:56] risk. Um my understanding from the
[34:59] report is that there's no current
[35:01] concern around indoor and firefighting
[35:03] and sort of those normal uses. It's just
[35:05] in the peak times when you have 72% of
[35:08] the the water being used for outdoor uh
[35:12] that's where we run into the issue. But
[35:13] there is a value about and this is I
[35:15] think shifting culturally as well is you
[35:17] know do we water our lawns? Um,
[35:20] obviously we still want to water um, you
[35:23] know, gardens and all that sort of
[35:24] thing, but the lawns themselves um, is
[35:27] something that I think culturally is
[35:29] changing that people aren't having the
[35:30] same expectations around having a like a
[35:33] golf course style lawn in front of your
[35:34] house. Um, so maybe there's a question
[35:38] in there which is at what point do we
[35:40] kind of hit a point where we're now
[35:44] uh risking not having enough indoor use
[35:46] water? And uh and then I I know you
[35:50] can't probably answer the value question
[35:51] about how much we should be putting
[35:53] towards lawns, but yeah.
[35:56] Um yeah so on the first part of the
[35:58] question um in terms of when that's not
[36:01] something sort of specifically that
[36:03] looked at but um generally
[36:07] the and now this is the total demand. Um
[36:11] so generally about 2third of the total
[36:13] annual demand is used through the
[36:16] summertime. So if you can kind of reduce
[36:18] that down that's like that is fairly
[36:20] significant component of of the water um
[36:23] that total volume and and that was
[36:25] discussed and addressed to some extent
[36:27] in the report with regards to
[36:28] conservation measures um and and uh
[36:32] providing some uh recommendations on
[36:37] uh different programs and and potential
[36:41] uh projects to look at at water
[36:43] conservation and and that does make a
[36:46] Right. So you can there there are a
[36:47] couple of graphs in the report that show
[36:49] sort of a reduction in the demand and
[36:50] then a slow increase as the uh with with growth. Um so there isn't there
[36:56] wasn't sort of a specific in terms of
[36:58] that that background um what the uh the
[37:03] future is but it was it was beyond what
[37:06] the uh the planning horizon was for the
[37:09] study which was the 50-year period.
[37:12] Yeah.
[37:20] Are you?
[37:22] >> Yeah. Okay. Councelor Gor, go ahead sir.
[37:23] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. [clears throat]
[37:25] Thank you uh for the presentation and uh
[37:27] very uh detailed report. Uh good to have
[37:31] those options I think explicitly
[37:33] expressed now in this meeting. Um my
[37:36] question is about the methodology. Um
[37:39] when you gave us all those different
[37:41] options about potential sources, what
[37:44] sort of methodology was used to come up
[37:46] with those costs and the feasibility of
[37:48] those sources? Was it just uh review of
[37:51] the previous studies or any satellite
[37:54] imagery? Like I just want to make sure
[37:57] we are we are making the most informed
[37:59] decision when we choose one of those
[38:00] sources. So if you can speak to the
[38:02] methodology please. Thank you.
[38:03] >> Yeah. No, of course. Uh so it was a
[38:05] combination. Um we reviewed the previous
[38:08] studies um and and those identified
[38:11] those areas. We also looked at the
[38:14] topography um with regards to um a
[38:20] uh where where in the watershed are
[38:23] there locations where for that sort of
[38:25] that incremental height of a dam, how
[38:28] much storage can you get? and and it
[38:31] that that assessment came out to kind of
[38:34] the same locations as as previously.
[38:36] There are there are so many sites within
[38:39] the area that that within the watershed
[38:41] that have that combination of the right
[38:44] topography and normally normally it's a
[38:47] lake. So, so if you think about sort of
[38:49] a it it's sort of the difference between
[38:53] storing volume in a triangle versus
[38:55] storing volume in a square, right? So,
[38:57] for the same amount of of Yeah.
[39:00] So just to clarify, did that include
[39:02] like field trips? You went there
[39:04] actually to
[39:05] >> No. Okay. There was Yeah. Yeah. There
[39:06] were no there was no field investigation
[39:08] as part of this this study. The only the
[39:11] field trip that we did do was up to the
[39:13] existing the existing dam.
[39:14] >> Okay.
[39:15] >> I have one uh more question. Thank you.
[39:18] Um you spoke about the Aerosmith Dam and
[39:20] the possibility of raising it. Uh uh our
[39:23] current deficit is 2.2 million cubic. it
[39:25] will give us about two uh better than
[39:29] nothing and I think uh in the staff
[39:31] report it mentions that staff recommends
[39:34] looking at this uh as an option. Um I
[39:37] personally do like it as a phased
[39:39] approach uh strategy is already there uh
[39:42] for us to explore this as an option. Um,
[39:45] can you speak to a little bit on the
[39:47] timeline if we were to start working on
[39:49] raising the dam? What sort of timeline
[39:51] are we looking at in getting those
[39:53] additional two cubic 2 million cubic
[39:55] meters of water? Thank you.
[39:56] >> Yeah. Um, so there's a couple of
[39:58] components to the timeline. Um, one is
[40:01] the the design side and then the second
[40:04] is the regulatory permitting because it
[40:06] would require a change to the water
[40:08] license. And so in terms of timing, it's
[40:11] it wouldn't be so a new source is
[40:14] probably in the 10-year kind of range to get a new source online. I would say
[40:20] an upgrade would be probably half of
[40:23] that. So yeah, in that sort of range.
[40:27] >> Thanks. And since we're in committee,
[40:30] >> yeah, that's sort of after the decisions
[40:32] been been made to to move forward with
[40:34] that option would be sort of in that
[40:36] kind of timeline. Yeah.
[40:38] >> Right. and and councelor Gorgan as Craig
[40:40] had mentioned anyways the raising of the
[40:42] Aerrol Smith Dam would have limited um
[40:45] value in my mind in my opinion because
[40:47] of what Craig said about it's such a
[40:49] small amount of catchment in it be
[40:52] because it the watershed that would
[40:54] supply that in fact our existing dam
[40:57] that we have now does not always fill
[41:00] right now during the winter months we've
[41:02] had times when it's not been that
[41:04] spillover and climate change is changing
[41:07] a lot of tanks and that is included. So
[41:09] even if we add um build up the walls
[41:12] another 30 ft, there's no guarantee that
[41:14] nature is going to actually fill that
[41:15] during the winter. So if you c if you
[41:18] can't capture it as it's such a small
[41:20] area if you have some rainfall spread
[41:23] over the whole wershed obviously that's
[41:25] what the English river does and collects
[41:26] all that but at the same time that it's
[41:29] you you've been up the dam I think
[41:30] haven't you see it's such a a tiny
[41:32] little cone. So there's no guarantee
[41:34] about that. That's just my comments on
[41:36] that. That's why I'm a little reluctant
[41:37] on that. Um, Councelor Martin, go ahead.
[41:43] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I I thank you
[41:46] for the reports there. Um, I was hoping
[41:49] I would have more decisions to be able
[41:51] to make, you know, too many options
[41:53] here, and the phased approach would
[41:55] probably be the most practical, but um,
[41:59] what about one of the lakes going into
[42:02] the dam like using one of the lakes?
[42:04] It's part of what your study has been.
[42:07] So the cost of that raising the dam is
[42:11] that a fiveyear would would be 10 years
[42:13] too like like you just mentioned.
[42:17] Would it would that work? I mean what I find really hard is I'm I was in
[42:22] Victoria when we had a water problem. I
[42:23] don't know if mentioned and they raised
[42:26] their dam and they have more water than
[42:28] they'll ever need now. And so I find
[42:30] this
[42:32] seems to be such a simple thing but it's
[42:34] not.
[42:35] So is it is it quite different than what
[42:38] happened in Victoria there Dan?
[42:40] >> Yeah thanks council Martin. Um yeah
[42:42] there's so it the the main um driver is
[42:49] there are two there are two pieces when
[42:51] you're looking at water surface water
[42:52] supply that you need to consider. One is
[42:55] how much water on an annual basis is
[42:57] there that's coming off. And that's to
[42:59] be able to provide flow throughout the
[43:03] year um both for the community and for
[43:05] environmental flow needs as well as be
[43:08] able to refill the storage that you've
[43:10] depleted the year before. for um for
[43:15] the CRD system um down in Victoria, the
[43:19] greater Victoria Water Supply system. Um
[43:22] their wershed in terms of a ratio is
[43:24] significantly more is significantly
[43:26] bigger um with the ratio of the amount
[43:29] of water that's available in the wershed
[43:31] to this amount of storage because the
[43:33] wershed is quite a bit bigger. Um the
[43:36] other piece with the Victoria system is
[43:39] um they do have that it's not been
[43:42] implemented yet, but there is a future
[43:44] potential implementation of the Leech
[43:45] River system to be able to bring
[43:47] additional water in. Um,
[43:51] going back to the first part of your
[43:53] question around the uh other lakes
[43:57] upstream of of Aerosmith,
[44:00] it's because it's all coming from the
[44:03] same watershed.
[44:05] It's it's you you need to whether that's
[44:07] storage is being filled at the
[44:09] downstream end where the dam is or
[44:12] further upstream, it's all coming from
[44:14] the same location. So you it's even
[44:17] though you could split that storage up
[44:20] over a couple of different locations
[44:22] because the overall wershed isn't
[44:23] supplying sufficient water to refill the
[44:26] storage currently. It it wouldn't
[44:28] provide enough to fill up two stoages in
[44:30] the same wershed. You could look at it
[44:32] at a separate whed like the fish tail as
[44:35] an example. Um, but because it's all
[44:38] coming from the same watershed, it's it
[44:40] it's uh it wouldn't be able to fill up
[44:42] both both of the the stoages. Yeah.
[44:47] >> Good. Good. Counc. Go ahead, sir.
[44:52] >> Thank you through the mayor to our
[44:53] delegation. Uh, in your presentation
[44:55] here, you mentioned Oquer 216. Uh but I
[44:59] in your report it was off for 221 that
[45:02] you guys were speaking about as uh the
[45:05] potential to there. So uh I guess why
[45:08] the shift from like why the focus on 216
[45:10] here and not mentioning 221.
[45:13] >> Yeah.
[45:13] >> But and also uh isn't 221 known
[45:16] vulnerable aquifer as it is now? Um you
[45:20] talk about groundwater like being only
[45:22] you know potential uh supplement there
[45:24] too. But um yeah anyways why Hagum 221
[45:29] is not mentioned here but it was one of
[45:30] the key findings in your report.
[45:32] >> Yeah um did you want to speak to it? Uh
[45:36] yeah.
[45:37] >> Yeah. The um we did look at um both
[45:40] aquifers. Aquifer 221 if we could do you
[45:43] mind pulling up that slide with the uh
[45:47] um aquifer 221 is there is a system sand
[45:51] periel I think that draws from that
[45:53] aquifer and it is closer to uh to the
[45:57] ocean. Uh so further study would be
[46:00] needed to to figure out um what further
[46:04] water could be drawn from there. I think
[46:06] here the reference to um acquer 216 is
[46:10] your current aquifer where where again
[46:12] there's um potential for for a small
[46:18] amount to be drawn from that as well. uh
[46:20] just further study is needed in terms of
[46:23] a groundwater numerical model which uh the regional district of
[46:27] Nanaimo has has has done some of that
[46:30] work in the past but it hasn't been done
[46:32] in the context of the city's supply and withdrawal specifically.
[46:40] » Okay.
[46:41] Um and then also it seemed like uh
[46:45] Shelton and Healey Lake were some you
[46:47] know primary uh sources that have been
[46:50] identified in the past too. What's your
[46:52] guys' opinion then on the the potential
[46:54] out of there and and you know I guess
[46:56] like why haven't they been highlighted
[46:58] as more as like the you know we're
[47:00] looking for some kind of clear direction
[47:01] as saying like this is your best option
[47:04] uh for not just um the value but for you
[47:08] know if you look at a lifetime as uh
[47:10] councelor Gren mentioned like looking uh
[47:12] forward ahead in in generations here uh
[47:15] would this not be the one to benefit us
[47:18] long term uh you know I don't want to
[47:20] see us take a position of going, let's
[47:22] do something that's of good value,
[47:23] meaning just cheap for us now, but then
[47:26] in 20 years we go, oh, like we we should
[47:29] have gone with the, you know, the more
[47:31] robust system because now we just made
[47:33] it harder for ourselves later on. We
[47:34] already spent a whole whack of money and
[47:36] now it's more expensive to do what we
[47:38] should have done in the first place. So
[47:39] you know when I think about value it's
[47:41] the long term not just what you know
[47:42] this uh this council or the next council
[47:45] will be uh having a face for the
[47:47] taxpayers but you know the residents in
[47:49] 20 years what's the the you know the
[47:52] value over the lifetime.
[47:55] Yeah. Um yeah thanks councelor presence.
[47:59] Um so there's uh for for Shelton and
[48:02] Healey um there have been they they have
[48:05] been identified previously as as
[48:07] potential um options as you'd mentioned.
[48:10] Um so there were in addition to the cost
[48:14] um there were some other considerations
[48:16] uh for that that may kind of at the
[48:20] level of the analysis that was done to
[48:22] sort of provide clear direction. the um
[48:26] there was so for Shelton it's similar to
[48:30] Aerosmith in that the watershed area is
[48:32] relatively small and so the ability to
[48:35] refill storage in that location is is
[48:37] limited.
[48:39] The um Healey is downstream. It has
[48:41] quite a larger a larger watershed area
[48:44] which is h which is helpful in terms of
[48:47] refilling. Um but um there could
[48:51] potentially be some environmental um
[48:53] considerations. It's more of a wetland
[48:56] than a lake. Um and so there might there
[48:58] could potentially be um species at risk
[49:01] or other considerations that would need
[49:02] to be considered as part of permitting.
[49:04] So there's a bit more of a permitting
[49:05] risk, an environmental risk on that one.
[49:08] And then the other piece for both is the
[49:10] amount of storage that's required is it
[49:12] would be more um because there would be
[49:15] a requirement to release because the
[49:18] waters coming from the south Englishman
[49:19] river wershed there would be an
[49:21] additional requirement to supply
[49:23] environmental flow needs for the
[49:25] southishment. Um so the amount of
[49:27] storage that's why the storage numbers
[49:29] for those are higher than than fishtail
[49:31] is because there would be a supplemental
[49:33] need to supply um additional flow along
[49:37] the along the south Englishman. Um so
[49:40] even though they um they might they
[49:44] they're from a from a technical
[49:46] perspective and a cost perspective
[49:48] they're they're they seem to be high on
[49:50] the list because of those other
[49:51] considerations. um they kind of balanced
[49:54] off with the other with the other
[49:56] options like fishtail or or the South
[49:58] Englishman tributary. The um fishtail
[50:03] um has a smaller volume requirement
[50:07] because it's it's feeding directly into
[50:09] the Englishman. So it would essentially
[50:11] supplement the existing environmental
[50:12] flow need requirements for for the the Englishman River, the main stem of
[50:17] the Englishman River. um as well at but
[50:20] one of the challenges with Fishtail was
[50:22] more on the technical side is is access.
[50:24] Um it's it's it's a very it would be a
[50:27] difficult site to get to. Um so sort of
[50:29] those trade-offs and it was it we sort
[50:32] of that's why we went through that
[50:33] process and in the end there were
[50:35] several that kind of came out close and
[50:37] so there'd need to be kind of more
[50:38] evaluation. There wasn't sort of a clear
[50:41] front runner after doing that analysis.
[50:43] So yeah.
[50:45] >> Go ahead.
[50:46] Um
[50:48] Sorry. Thank you. Um, so speaking of the
[50:50] Fishtail area as well, there is that
[50:52] small lake uh between Aerosmith Dam and
[50:54] Fishtail, Hidden Lake, I believe it's
[50:56] called. Uh, why no mention about, you
[50:59] know, draining that one into uh the
[51:02] Aerosmith Dam. Seems that it it seems
[51:04] like the access is it's on the same side
[51:06] of the ridge. There's already a road
[51:08] that's going right up to it. It's right
[51:09] above Aerosmith. It seems like you could
[51:11] just put a line in a tap and then you
[51:14] know I know it's not a lot of volume but
[51:16] um when you talk about if the dam's not
[51:18] spilling over you know if you're
[51:20] supplementing even 20% out of it that's quite a bit more water that's not
[51:24] being utilized right now. Um is that an
[51:27] option or or why has that not been
[51:29] discussed as like here's a little bit
[51:31] more low hanging fruit to get more water
[51:33] to the dam?
[51:35] >> Yeah. So um sort of similar it um so a
[51:39] hidden lake flows into Aerosmith as as
[51:42] you indicated and because it's within
[51:45] the same watershed
[51:47] um whether whether that's stored at the
[51:51] existing location or at Hidden Lake,
[51:54] it's all coming from the same volume of
[51:56] water. Um, and so essentially your your
[52:01] the volume that you would require to
[52:03] fill up Hidden Lake is now not going to
[52:06] clear Smith water.
[52:07] >> So it's already draining into the dam.
[52:08] >> It's already draining into the dam
[52:10] already. So So capturing it further
[52:13] upstream.
[52:14] >> Um,
[52:16] it's not providing a benefit.
[52:17] >> If it's already draining into it, then
[52:19] that that Yeah, it's a good point at
[52:21] that point. I just to me it just seemed
[52:23] like it sits there and just evaporates
[52:25] and and doesn't uh do anything. So
[52:27] because you have water up there in
[52:29] August as well as sitting up there and
[52:31] our dam's going low and there's still
[52:32] water in Hidden Lake. So I just thought
[52:34] why would we keep water up in there? Why
[52:35] not put all into the dam into the same
[52:38] source?
[52:39] >> Um okay, thank you for that. Appreciate
[52:41] [clears throat] that.
[52:46] » Uh
[52:47] councelor
[52:50] certly go ahead.
[52:51] >> Thank you Mr. mayor and thank you very
[52:53] much for the presentation and the update
[52:55] and the information. I really appreciate
[52:57] it. I have a and I wanted to focus the
[53:00] questions on this particular topic and
[53:03] leave the aquifer and groundwater uh
[53:06] conservation separately. Um, I was
[53:09] curious first of all, and forgive me
[53:11] everybody here who already knows this,
[53:13] but I don't recall if the South
[53:16] Englishman River flows into uh the
[53:19] Englishman above or below the clay
[53:22] banks. Can you answer that? Can somebody
[53:25] here answer that?
[53:27] >> I Yeah. Um, yeah, my understanding is
[53:31] it's above it flows in above the clay.
[53:34] >> That's what I was afraid of. That's what
[53:35] I thought. But I was thinking, oh, I
[53:36] just haven't been up there recently, so
[53:38] I couldn't recall. Okay. I just thought
[53:40] that would eliminate a little bit of a,
[53:42] you know, an area of some friction,
[53:45] let's say, regarding water treatment
[53:47] plant. But my questions are also about
[53:50] uh Shelton and Healey and and the
[53:52] information you've given has helped a
[53:53] bit with that. But um presumably this
[53:57] they would not be combined in a way as a
[54:00] phrase approach but that if one went
[54:02] with Healey that is basically drawing
[54:04] from Shelton as well as it feeds into
[54:06] Healey would that be correct. So in fact
[54:09] uh if we if one looked at um Healey then
[54:14] that is drawing on that whole area
[54:17] correct okay thank you. And another
[54:20] question again for clarification.
[54:22] Um you know hearing the mayor speak uh
[54:25] and yourself speak about the sidestream
[54:28] storage. Um
[54:31] I I've just I guess I've been a little
[54:33] bit perplexed like how is that really
[54:35] different from uh what's being looked at
[54:38] here in terms of providing a dam and and
[54:41] gathering an area that is storage that
[54:44] is then released as needed. and over
[54:47] time um although perhaps I guess the
[54:50] spillover part is not necessarily
[54:53] released sorry utilized for the city but
[54:56] nonetheless depending on the size of the
[54:58] dam that actually provides storage. So
[55:01] is is really the difference in terms of
[55:04] considering something like that is it
[55:06] around regulatory
[55:09] um requirements if I made from the
[55:12] province or is it around water licenses
[55:14] or if one had something like sidestream
[55:17] storage would that not also need some
[55:20] kind of water license I'm just not
[55:22] understanding
[55:23] why one would look at that if we um are
[55:27] able to provide enough storage of water
[55:30] with one of the options that you put
[55:32] forward.
[55:34] >> Um, yeah. So, I think
[55:38] so I'll just clarify in terms of your
[55:40] the first part of your question. Um,
[55:42] yes. So, for Shelton and Healey, they
[55:44] were both coming from the same the same
[55:46] watershed and there could be the
[55:49] potential of of having so one larger dam
[55:53] at at Healey or two smaller dams, one at
[55:56] Shelf and one at Healey. So there are
[55:58] some potential options there, but again
[56:01] sort of similar to to Aerosmith, it's
[56:04] all coming from the same wershed. So you
[56:06] the total volume that's available is is
[56:08] the same no matter where you're storing
[56:10] it. Uh
[56:13] I'll I'll stick on that side. Um so the
[56:16] for the the licensing um because it is
[56:21] in it's new storage um there be a new
[56:24] dam there would be a requirement for a
[56:27] license a new license for the structure
[56:30] and
[56:32] the license needs to define both what
[56:35] the location the volume and the use the
[56:38] intended use. Um and so in this
[56:40] particular case it would be there would
[56:43] be a component of it for uh the
[56:45] community um demand and withdrawal and
[56:49] the other component of it would be for
[56:51] storage to supplement flows in the south
[56:54] Englishman river. Um because the storage
[56:57] is located on the south Englishman there
[57:00] would be an expectation that there would
[57:02] be additional flows provided on top of
[57:05] what's required for the community. So
[57:07] that's why there's more storage. the um
[57:10] for the
[57:13] and and the main reason for that is
[57:15] because you'd be releasing the flow and
[57:17] during the summer period when the flows
[57:19] are low, when the base flows are low and
[57:22] um the the for the east coast of the
[57:25] island, um essentially the the policy is
[57:28] that you provide you need if you're
[57:30] withdrawing water during that time, then
[57:33] you need there's enough storage to be
[57:35] able to support the withdrawal as well
[57:38] as an environmental flow need. Um the
[57:43] for the off channel storage uh the
[57:47] intent there would be that the water be
[57:49] withdrawn during the period when there's
[57:51] higher flow and so
[57:55] there would there may still be that's
[57:57] one thing I can't comment on is like
[57:59] there might still be the need for
[58:00] additional environmental flow needs
[58:02] potentially with that. It's it it it
[58:04] that would need some further discussion
[58:06] with the regulator on that one. But the
[58:09] sort of the intent would be that the
[58:11] water would be withdrawn in the winter
[58:12] when the flows are higher um and then
[58:14] stored um in in a um in a location in a pond um that would then be used
[58:23] through the summer period. the and I
[58:25] guess from a from a
[58:28] technical perspective the difference
[58:32] would be that the pond um an off channel
[58:37] pond would require you would be
[58:40] constructing the volume by excavating
[58:43] and and burming like essentially
[58:46] creating a dugout a really large dugout
[58:49] um or a series of dugouts um versus um
[58:54] using a natural feature um and a dam to
[58:57] be able to provide the storage. And so
[59:00] there's sort of it the main differences
[59:03] are just sort of the the footprint the the incremental footprint of of the
[59:10] storage area. So if we're looking at say
[59:13] Shelton for example, um there's already
[59:16] a lake there. Um, and so you the lake
[59:19] would be bigger, but it would the the
[59:23] incremental size of that would be less
[59:25] than what a a new pond would be. Um, so
[59:28] that there's there's other
[59:30] considerations there, too. And so
[59:31] there's land considerations,
[59:32] environmental considerations. At the
[59:35] same time, off channel storage, you
[59:36] would sort of remove those potential um
[59:40] potential regulatory. if there was a a a
[59:44] good location, you could remove some of
[59:46] the other regulatory environmental
[59:49] concerns around raising a lake. So,
[59:52] raising a lake, there are concerns about
[59:54] how does that affect the the the
[59:56] riparian area? Um what kind of impact
[59:59] does that have on the land? Um the land
[1:00:01] like there's the land owner. Um whereas
[1:00:05] providing offstream storage, you're
[1:00:07] eliminating some of that because it's
[1:00:08] separated from the the riparian zone. Um
[1:00:11] and uh there could be other terrestrial
[1:00:15] considerations in terms of changing that
[1:00:17] habitat from terrestrial to aquatic but
[1:00:21] um but it but there's a trade-off there.
[1:00:27] >> You mention sorry also mentioned the
[1:00:30] potential water quality uh concerns. So
[1:00:33] would need to be some detailed study on
[1:00:35] uh on how that would be impacted having
[1:00:38] storing water and not not having outflow
[1:00:40] from it or no movement in that water.
[1:00:43] Yeah,
[1:00:46] >> Dr. Wood, go ahead.
[1:00:48] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh I sent a slide to
[1:00:51] staff. I'm hoping that they got it. I
[1:00:55] wasn't really planning to speak to this.
[1:00:56] is um
[1:00:59] it's with regards to um environmental
[1:01:01] flow needs. And so, um,
[1:01:05] in your presentation today, we saw that
[1:01:08] the flow in the river during the drought
[1:01:11] periods or the dry season is actually
[1:01:14] better because there's a dam. And so, I
[1:01:18] think we have some misconceptions about
[1:01:22] what the dam means. And yes, there's
[1:01:24] environmental concerns when we're going
[1:01:26] to build the dam. We saw a lot of that
[1:01:27] with site C. you know, you're flooding
[1:01:30] farmland and you're never going to use
[1:01:31] that land again, etc., etc. So, where we
[1:01:34] build the dam, there's definitely
[1:01:35] environmental concerns, but um I pulled
[1:01:38] a bunch of data that's public data as to
[1:01:41] how the river has done since we were
[1:01:43] pulling the data. And you can see that
[1:01:47] it was very low uh lower than before the
[1:01:52] dam. And now the dam actually makes it
[1:01:55] obviously better um than it was before
[1:01:59] we were holding water up there. Um you
[1:02:01] can also I put population growth on here
[1:02:04] too. And
[1:02:07] the idea seems to be that if we can flow
[1:02:11] more water uh from upland, we're
[1:02:15] actually making it better for the
[1:02:16] rivers. It's not worse, it is better.
[1:02:18] the dams make the rivers and you know
[1:02:21] the environment for the fish better. Um
[1:02:24] and so I think there's a misconception
[1:02:26] that um we built the dam and things got
[1:02:30] worse. You can see by the data that the
[1:02:32] river used to be much more dry and if we
[1:02:35] weren't releasing water from the dam
[1:02:36] right now there'd be a trickle. Um, and
[1:02:39] so I I just wanted to mention that when
[1:02:41] we're talking about environmental needs,
[1:02:43] if there was Shelton or Healey or
[1:02:44] whatever uh options up there that if we
[1:02:49] build more upstream water storage and be
[1:02:52] releasing it, the the lower down on the
[1:02:54] watershed is healthier, not not worse,
[1:02:58] because we get to control a little bit
[1:03:00] and add a little bit more water when
[1:03:03] there wouldn't have been naturally. Um,
[1:03:05] I'd love to see us plan for zero
[1:03:07] snowpack. Uh, if we get years with
[1:03:09] snowpack, great. With more, you know,
[1:03:12] that's natural upland water storage is
[1:03:14] how I kind of look at it. I think I
[1:03:16] mentioned that to you guys before. Um,
[1:03:17] but I would love to hear your thoughts
[1:03:19] on if I'm, you know, if I'm on the right
[1:03:21] track. This is data looks right to you.
[1:03:24] know, is that what dams actually do?
[1:03:26] they make lower on the wershed? Do
[1:03:28] they make the rivers actually healthier
[1:03:30] um than they would be naturally?
[1:03:33] >> Um,
[1:03:35] yeah. No, thanks Councelor Wood for your
[1:03:37] question. Um, yeah, so again, um, I'm
[1:03:41] going to focus on the Englishman. Um,
[1:03:44] dams as a whole is a is is is a is
[1:03:46] definitely a broader broader question,
[1:03:48] but um, for the for the Englishman River
[1:03:50] specifically, um, yes, like the the the
[1:03:54] dam has provided storage in the upland
[1:03:57] that is providing increased flows for
[1:04:01] almost the entire main stem of the
[1:04:03] Englishman River. Um and one of the
[1:04:07] there there are two parts to that. One
[1:04:08] is it's um it's increasing what the
[1:04:11] flows were downstream of the intake um
[1:04:15] to be able to to to provide benefit for
[1:04:18] that for the intake down to the ocean.
[1:04:21] Um but the other piece is the water that
[1:04:24] the community is using is flowing all
[1:04:27] the way down the river before it's
[1:04:29] getting withdrawn. And that water is
[1:04:32] also benefiting upstream. Um
[1:04:36] uh by like alternatively when the dam
[1:04:39] was constructed there could have been a
[1:04:41] pipeline that was constructed all the
[1:04:43] way down from the dam to the community
[1:04:45] and that water wouldn't have gone into
[1:04:46] the river. So there's so there's a
[1:04:48] benefit. It's a it's a co- benefit. So
[1:04:50] there's a benefit to the community and a
[1:04:52] benefit to the river. Um and yeah and so
[1:04:55] for Shelton and Healey there would be
[1:04:58] that benefit to then the South
[1:05:01] Englishman as well. Um but that would
[1:05:03] need to be looked at and offset against
[1:05:06] what are some of the concerns around
[1:05:07] raising the water level in the lake. Um
[1:05:10] and and and that tradeoff it's it's it's
[1:05:14] about considering those trade-offs.
[1:05:15] Yeah.
[1:05:17] Can I sorry I add to that council we're
[1:05:19] just in regard to the um a new project
[1:05:22] also there there could be bene uh there
[1:05:24] obviously we're talking about benefits
[1:05:25] the environment there could be
[1:05:26] opportunity to seek funding from other
[1:05:29] uh sources too where uh environmental
[1:05:33] agencies are such that to promote that
[1:05:37] uh water usage downstream for uh for the
[1:05:40] environment.
[1:05:42] >> Yeah. So if there's that co- benefit of
[1:05:44] an environmental benefit and a community
[1:05:46] benefit, there could be some additional
[1:05:49] um potential funding sources if it's
[1:05:51] provide if it's showing that it's
[1:05:52] providing benefit for for habitat for
[1:05:55] aquatic habitat. And then you know my
[1:05:57] followup and I don't know how the
[1:05:59] regulators operate but um if I were a
[1:06:02] regulator I would be balancing the
[1:06:04] environmental concerns of you know
[1:06:06] raising the level of the lake and what
[1:06:08] happens way upstream uh versus the
[1:06:10] obvious benefits to the river fish
[1:06:14] habitat etc downstream. Um, and if the
[1:06:18] feds and the province want us to build
[1:06:20] more housing, well, you know, obviously
[1:06:23] water supply is part of our
[1:06:25] infrastructure that we provide here. And
[1:06:27] so if I were a regulator, I'd be like,
[1:06:29] yeah, you know, the water level is going
[1:06:30] to go up at whatever, you know, location
[1:06:33] we choose. Um, but the benefits far
[1:06:37] outweigh for the environmental flow
[1:06:39] needs, uh, for the community. They they
[1:06:41] far outweigh that. And so I don't know
[1:06:43] how regulators, who is that? I don't
[1:06:45] know how they typically operate and
[1:06:48] maybe you guys as engineers maybe maybe
[1:06:50] you could shed some light on what they
[1:06:51] look at when they when they are
[1:06:53] balancing these decisions.
[1:06:54] >> Um yeah so so there are um really
[1:07:01] sort of three areas I guess broadly that
[1:07:04] the regulators looking at on the water
[1:07:06] licensing side anyway. Um so one is the
[1:07:10] first is is there enough water
[1:07:13] technically? Um the second is does would
[1:07:18] issuing the license impact um any of the
[1:07:23] rights holders. So that's um property
[1:07:27] rights, other water rights holders, uh First Nations, land title, um and
[1:07:34] then and making sure there's because the
[1:07:35] province needs to consult and and with First Nations. So there's there
[1:07:39] there's a First Nations um component to
[1:07:42] the question in terms of making sure
[1:07:44] that that the community is on board with
[1:07:46] what the direction is. Um and then uh
[1:07:50] there's and then there's also the
[1:07:52] environmental component. Um and to some
[1:07:56] extent the social component as well. Um
[1:07:58] so there there's usually a development
[1:08:01] plan that's prepared that by the by the
[1:08:04] proponent. So whoever's applying for the
[1:08:08] license needs to put together a document
[1:08:10] that kind of outlines the benefits and
[1:08:12] the costs of each of those components.
[1:08:14] Um and and then it's up to the regulator
[1:08:17] to go either um yes like the the I I
[1:08:22] concur that overall for those different
[1:08:26] components that the benefit is to issue
[1:08:28] the license or no it's not or there's
[1:08:32] the middle of need more information
[1:08:35] right and so that's essentially the
[1:08:36] process for the licensing and then on
[1:08:39] the on the DFO side um it's really more
[1:08:42] focused on the The main sort of test is
[1:08:46] are the actions being taken? Are they um
[1:08:51] altering
[1:08:52] um or destroying fish habitat? So that's
[1:08:55] their test um in terms of issuing a a a
[1:08:59] license under the under the Fisheries
[1:09:01] Act. So they're really focused like
[1:09:03] their their focus is really on the
[1:09:05] aquatic habitat um and are the actions
[1:09:08] being taken are they going to impact um
[1:09:11] and like either alter or destroy habitat
[1:09:14] in any way. Um
[1:09:16] >> yeah,
[1:09:16] >> thank you very much for answering those.
[1:09:18] And to your last point, yeah, I don't
[1:09:19] I'm not a biologist, so I don't
[1:09:21] understand like if we're actually adding
[1:09:23] more water to the habitat than would
[1:09:25] naturally be there. So, I don't I don't
[1:09:27] quite understand the environmental flow
[1:09:29] needs, which are higher than
[1:09:31] historically what it would be. Uh, but
[1:09:33] thank you for answering those and thank
[1:09:35] you to staff for um throwing that slide
[1:09:37] up. Thanks, Mayor.
[1:09:38] >> Great. Thank you. I I'll just uh throw
[1:09:43] in just a comment. Anyways, um just
[1:09:45] spitballing here. Um I hung around in
[1:09:48] Calgary a little while and my use and so
[1:09:51] forth. What is the use of for the
[1:09:52] Glenmore Dam? Are you familiar with the
[1:09:54] Glenmore Dam? It's right in the middle
[1:09:56] of Calgary. Well, Calgary is growing all
[1:09:58] around the Glenmore and Heritage Park is
[1:10:00] right beside there, the huge subdivision
[1:10:02] and so forth. But are you familiar with
[1:10:03] the Glenmore? Is it is it actually flood
[1:10:06] control like all the problems they've
[1:10:07] had in Calgary and the flood control,
[1:10:09] but are they actually using it as a
[1:10:11] storage for their potable water?
[1:10:13] >> Um, yeah. So, my under I know a little
[1:10:16] bit about it, so I'm going to qualify
[1:10:18] that, right? But I think my
[1:10:19] understanding is is it's twofold. Um so
[1:10:22] there there is some um uh storage for
[1:10:26] flood control to some extent and then
[1:10:29] also like my understanding is they do
[1:10:31] use Glenmore as as one of their water
[1:10:33] supplies.
[1:10:34] >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. It it that's one of
[1:10:36] those like as we say a phased let's put
[1:10:39] a reservoir here because we have the
[1:10:41] land here and it's right adjacent to
[1:10:43] probably the B river anyways are right
[1:10:45] there. So yeah,
[1:10:46] >> um good planning
[1:10:47] >> and yeah and I know like relatively
[1:10:50] recently my understanding is they've
[1:10:53] also provided some additional flood
[1:10:54] relief um through a new system that that
[1:10:57] allows the water to flow out into the
[1:10:59] flood plane which is agricultural land
[1:11:01] >> right
[1:11:02] >> um and then slowly released back into um
[1:11:05] into the elbow before flowing down into Glenmore and I think it was just
[1:11:09] recently tested with the recent with the
[1:11:12] recent rains and I believe that they're
[1:11:13] sort of evaluating what the water
[1:11:15] quality quality impacts of that have
[1:11:16] been um Yeah.
[1:11:18] >> Yeah. And and that's exactly I did a
[1:11:20] tour with FCM anyways back in Calgary
[1:11:23] anyways two years ago and I saw the
[1:11:25] results of that management of the storm
[1:11:27] water and it was huge but um they had to
[1:11:30] do it because they had a a disaster a
[1:11:33] few years previous on that.
[1:11:34] >> So thank you for that. Just a quick
[1:11:36] question. I'll go to the second time
[1:11:37] speakers in a second here. Um we're going to be looking for direction
[1:11:41] from council anyways to say um which
[1:11:43] where we want to go on phase two um soon
[1:11:46] here. Um just in your estimation if we
[1:11:49] took just a simple approach for phase
[1:11:51] two as I was suggesting just come up
[1:11:52] with storage solution or something like
[1:11:54] that. Um we're talking budget here. You
[1:11:57] know we have I understand $431,000 left
[1:11:59] in our budget anyways that we have
[1:12:01] allocated for this study. um could
[1:12:03] that's uh just that portion and not do
[1:12:07] anything else that was suggested would
[1:12:09] that be able to be done for uh within
[1:12:11] our budget.
[1:12:13] So the so just to in ter of clarifying
[1:12:16] um so looking specifically at the um at
[1:12:20] the offstream yes storage um and just that comp component of it um yes
[1:12:25] yeah um yeah um in terms of the broader
[1:12:29] um sort of ideas it that's going to
[1:12:31] depend a little bit on the scope but
[1:12:33] that that piece of the scope yes
[1:12:35] >> I I would expect it would be within that
[1:12:37] but uh just from your your past work all
[1:12:40] you had to do on that but I just
[1:12:42] >> don't assume anything unless you get get
[1:12:44] the answer. Thanks. Thanks for that,
[1:12:45] Greg. Councelor Gore has another
[1:12:47] question.
[1:12:48] >> Thank you.
[1:12:48] >> Oh, sorry. And councelor Gran, you you
[1:12:50] want to follow up too, Council Gore and
[1:12:52] then over to you. Yes.
[1:12:54] >> Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Um,
[1:12:57] you mentioned about the potential uh to
[1:13:00] withdraw from the aquifers.
[1:13:03] Um,
[1:13:05] and looking at the the studies of the
[1:13:07] aquifer that have been done by the RDN,
[1:13:10] we see that our acryers are stressed.
[1:13:12] Uh, I think 216 is not um coming back up
[1:13:17] as as quickly as as we would like it to.
[1:13:20] Um, but also the interconnectedness of
[1:13:24] the groundwater and the surface flow.
[1:13:26] So, I want to make sure we are doing it
[1:13:28] responsibly. We just don't think that
[1:13:30] the groundwater let's take it all. uh uh
[1:13:32] because that will eventually also impact
[1:13:35] the the the surface flow in the
[1:13:36] Englishman. So do you still think the
[1:13:40] aquifer is a viable option and not
[1:13:43] impacting the base flow in the
[1:13:44] Englishman? Um
[1:13:48] and and 216 in your opinion is it is it
[1:13:50] healthy? Is it is it able to recharge as quickly as as we would like? So we
[1:13:56] can use this as a viable option as a
[1:13:59] ground water source. Um yes so yeah cl
[1:14:05] qualify on that. So so um our
[1:14:08] groundwater hydraologists so water line
[1:14:10] um they they evaluated the data and in
[1:14:13] their opinion that there's um there is
[1:14:16] potential to help supplement um the
[1:14:19] community withdrawal but there isn't
[1:14:20] enough to provide all of the water needs
[1:14:22] for the community. So there's there um there's appears to be at a high
[1:14:29] level in terms of with the data that to
[1:14:31] be able to supplement but not to be able
[1:14:34] to provide there's not sufficient to be
[1:14:37] able to just rely on the groundwater. So
[1:14:40] >> right uh and just to clarify I think
[1:14:42] that withdrawal to supplement is
[1:14:44] expected in the summer months. Uh that's
[1:14:47] when also the the river is more
[1:14:49] stressed. uh and in my opinion I think
[1:14:51] even the acquers would be at the at
[1:14:53] their lowest um so maybe there's a sweet
[1:14:56] spot that we can you can get that number
[1:14:58] right in terms of the aquifer like I
[1:15:00] said without impacting the acryers also
[1:15:02] you know help the the surface flow uh so we're not impacting that okay thank
[1:15:07] you welcome
[1:15:08] >> yeah I just mentioned as well councelor
[1:15:10] Gorb recently at the RDN Erica put a
[1:15:13] presentation to us anyways about the
[1:15:15] water confirming that Parksville was or
[1:15:17] 19 wells are using aer uh 216
[1:15:21] and also but uh had other data
[1:15:24] suggesting that our wells actually were
[1:15:27] not being uh stressed actually they were
[1:15:30] um regular they hadn't uh dropped in
[1:15:33] fact a couple had actually improved and
[1:15:36] it's right in the report from Murray was
[1:15:38] there as well with foracular 2 and6 I
[1:15:41] just had pull up the stats anyways here
[1:15:43] on that actually our spring wood
[1:15:45] wellfield is actually doing Well, we're
[1:15:49] not stressing because of climate change
[1:15:51] at this time. Uh, councelor Gren, go
[1:15:54] ahead.
[1:15:54] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And actually,
[1:15:56] separate from my questions, uh, I am a
[1:15:59] bit confused on some of this
[1:16:01] terminology. Uh, when we speak about an
[1:16:03] aquifer being stressed, uh, am I correct
[1:16:07] that that actually refers to the, uh,
[1:16:09] the number of straws, so to speak, that
[1:16:11] are permitted to be in that aquifer uh,
[1:16:15] as opposed to the amount of water that's
[1:16:16] in the aquifer? It's just the potential
[1:16:18] to draw from the aquifer as opposed to
[1:16:20] the ability of the aquifer to supply
[1:16:23] that.
[1:16:26] » Yeah. Yeah.
[1:16:27] >> I think it's it's a combination there
[1:16:29] where um the term for an aquifer being
[1:16:33] stressed. Again, I'm not a hydraologist
[1:16:35] or hydro geologist either. My
[1:16:37] understanding is that the the rate of
[1:16:39] recovery of the aquifer level is is
[1:16:42] declining or it's you know it's not
[1:16:45] coming back as quickly as it used to
[1:16:47] type thing.
[1:16:48] My my understanding is since the um or
[1:16:51] prior to the water treatment plant being
[1:16:53] in place that the the groundwater usage
[1:16:55] was higher than it is today and uh since
[1:16:59] that time there's more surface water
[1:17:02] through the water treatment plant such
[1:17:04] that the groundwater has recovered a
[1:17:07] little bit better and uh such that
[1:17:09] there's the uh water levels looking at
[1:17:13] the data that uh that we had for the
[1:17:15] study and it's within I water lines
[1:17:18] appendix within the study. It shows sort
[1:17:20] of increasing trends of of groundwater
[1:17:22] levels in several of the uh the city's
[1:17:25] well points
[1:17:27] >> because that's how you could say that
[1:17:28] the aquifer is both stressed and
[1:17:30] recovering
[1:17:32] >> because that's what it's I think
[1:17:34] described as right. So so it's stressed
[1:17:36] in that there are a lot of uh draws on
[1:17:38] that aquifer. Uh there's a lot of
[1:17:41] potential that could be using the
[1:17:42] aquifer. Not just the city of
[1:17:44] Parksville, but a number of wells uh are
[1:17:46] using that aquifer. Uh but the actual
[1:17:49] overall trajectory of the aquifer is
[1:17:50] that it's recovering.
[1:17:53] >> Is that correct?
[1:17:54] >> I think we'd have to review it further.
[1:17:55] Yeah. In this in
[1:17:56] >> Okay. That's just what I've seen and
[1:17:58] what I think the report is kind of
[1:17:59] indicating. Yep.
[1:18:00] >> Maybe Murray wants to step in on that.
[1:18:02] Yeah.
[1:18:07] Okay.
[1:18:14] » So the uh the concept of aquifer stress
[1:18:17] at least in how we treat it in our water
[1:18:19] budget studies that we do in the RDN uh
[1:18:22] is more of a mass balance thing. So it's
[1:18:24] not looking at the number of straws in
[1:18:25] the aquifer. It's looking at how much
[1:18:27] water is withdrawn compared to how much
[1:18:28] water is is uh recharged to the aquifer
[1:18:31] using lots of elaborate models that I
[1:18:33] don't understand either. Um so the
[1:18:37] concept of the stress level of the
[1:18:39] aquifer and whether the aquifer is is
[1:18:42] stable or recovering or diminishing
[1:18:44] those are two different things. So one
[1:18:46] is based on a on a math balance and the
[1:18:49] other one's based on a relatively
[1:18:50] long-term trend. And I think what you've
[1:18:53] all said here is is really accurate in
[1:18:55] 216. It's a very heavily uh utilized
[1:18:58] aquifer and it's it's highly stressed uh
[1:19:00] from a mass balance perspective, but it
[1:19:03] is recovering uh particularly locally in
[1:19:06] the uh around Springwood because the
[1:19:08] city hasn't been using that water for 5
[1:19:10] years at any great amount.
[1:19:13] So, it's there's two two quite different
[1:19:15] concepts there.
[1:19:18] >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification.
[1:19:19] I think it's pretty important to
[1:19:20] understand because as much as possible
[1:19:23] to understand um because there's a
[1:19:25] difference between uh I guess like
[1:19:28] having a bank account that has a lot of
[1:19:30] people doing withdrawals from the bank
[1:19:32] account but that doesn't speak to
[1:19:33] whether the bank accounts being
[1:19:34] replenished with cash or not. So, you
[1:19:37] could say it's stressed and that there
[1:19:38] are a lot of people with with debit
[1:19:40] cards out there on that bank account,
[1:19:42] but that doesn't speak to whether fully
[1:19:45] whether there's enough in the bank
[1:19:46] account to supply all those those cards.
[1:19:49] Um, so anyway, that was a little tangent
[1:19:52] there. Thank you for clarifying. Thank
[1:19:53] you for that, Murray. Um I the I think
[1:19:57] one of the uh overarching questions that
[1:19:59] the community has on on this whole topic
[1:20:02] is uh speaks to why are there so
[1:20:06] frequent watering restrictions put in
[1:20:07] place? Uh and they seem to kind of come
[1:20:09] more frequently than they used to. Um uh
[1:20:13] maybe can you get into what the findings
[1:20:15] are that where that would be attributed?
[1:20:18] Is it and to what extent is it climate
[1:20:19] change? To what extent is it population?
[1:20:22] And um and on the population side, would
[1:20:26] you say that uh the population of
[1:20:29] Parksville has been increasing uh at a
[1:20:32] higher or as expected or lower rate than
[1:20:35] what the previous like I think 2011 plan
[1:20:39] was uh expecting. Um so maybe you can
[1:20:43] sort of circle around those topics.
[1:20:45] Thank you.
[1:20:48] Um yeah, I will I'll follow up on the on
[1:20:51] the first first part of of the the
[1:20:54] question there in terms of the um the
[1:20:56] changes that we've been seeing. Um I I'm
[1:21:00] not sure if we've got a copy of the
[1:21:02] report up that could be be shown, but
[1:21:05] there's um let me just double check the
[1:21:07] uh
[1:21:11] what [clears throat] page it's on, but
[1:21:12] just give me one second.
[1:21:45] Yeah. So, I um I think it's on page 6-4,
[1:21:49] I think.
[1:22:00] » Page of the PDF.
[1:22:01] >> Yes. Uh, I'll see if I can find it.
[1:22:04] Apologies for the uh the delay. I think
[1:22:06] this would just be it's a it's a helpful
[1:22:08] image to help explain what's going on.
[1:22:11] Um,
[1:22:35] Yeah. So, it's on it's paid. Uh
[1:22:38] >> got the one there, Greg.
[1:22:40] >> Um yeah, that one that one that one will
[1:22:43] work.
[1:22:45] Um,
[1:22:50] so,
[1:22:52] uh, actually
[1:22:55] there should be another one. Um, is it
[1:22:58] this one? Yeah, here we go. It's on it's figure 6-6. It's on page um 57,
[1:23:08] yeah, that one there. Um,
[1:23:12] so, so this this is a a a graph. Um, oh,
[1:23:17] uh, next one down. Yeah, that's it
[1:23:18] there. Perfect. Thank you. So, thank
[1:23:20] thanks for your patience and bringing
[1:23:22] that up. It just helps with explaining
[1:23:23] what's going on. Um, so this is a a
[1:23:27] graph showing flow in the Englishman
[1:23:29] River. um
[1:23:31] over with the um the orange the orange
[1:23:36] line um being sort of conditions between
[1:23:40] 2007 and 2015 and the green line being
[1:23:44] conditions between uh uh 2016 and now.
[1:23:48] So
[1:23:50] roughly 10ear periods. And um the down
[1:23:55] at the bottom of the chart, you can see
[1:23:58] those two areas that are highlighted um
[1:24:01] in in orange and in green and the the
[1:24:06] dashed line below those it is showing
[1:24:11] the what the base flow in the river. So
[1:24:13] this is the average. So what the base
[1:24:15] flow in the river would be if there
[1:24:18] weren't releases from the dam. um and
[1:24:21] the area between those two. Um so that orange area and the green area is
[1:24:28] representing the volume of storage that
[1:24:30] is being released from the dam over
[1:24:32] time. And so there's a couple of things
[1:24:34] going on. Um one is the over time the the
[1:24:42] rate that the water level is dropping in
[1:24:44] the spring isn't really changing very
[1:24:46] much, but it's happening sooner in the
[1:24:49] year. Um and and the second is that the
[1:24:52] base flow the ultimate low point is also
[1:24:55] getting lower. Um so so the amount of
[1:24:58] water that's being released from the dam
[1:25:02] to support um both the environmental
[1:25:06] flow needs as well as like well the
[1:25:08] environmental flow needs is increasing
[1:25:10] um over time and then on top of that
[1:25:13] there are the uh the community
[1:25:16] withdrawals because that um the line sh the solid line shown is the would be the flow in the like
[1:25:26] just upstream of the intake, right? So,
[1:25:28] just before the water gets withdrawn.
[1:25:29] So, that that includes both the
[1:25:31] community withdrawal and the the uh the
[1:25:34] EFN. Um yeah, so there's there's um
[1:25:38] there is the data is showing there's ch
[1:25:40] it's changing um and there like there are a number of reasons for that.
[1:25:46] There's there are climate change reasons
[1:25:48] for that. Um there are increased
[1:25:51] um some increase in demand over time um
[1:25:55] because of the warmer years and warmer
[1:25:57] summers higher higher demand for
[1:25:59] irrigation. Um as well as there have
[1:26:02] been like like the the ways that the
[1:26:06] watershed is used in terms of the land
[1:26:08] use like does have impact on on flows.
[1:26:11] Um it's hard to quantify that. It's
[1:26:12] really difficult to quantify it but
[1:26:14] there are there there can there can be
[1:26:16] changes. So things are changing and and
[1:26:19] that's the data is showing that there
[1:26:21] have been significant changes in the
[1:26:23] water even in a fairly short amount of
[1:26:25] time over the last 20 years um in terms
[1:26:27] of the the volume of water that's now
[1:26:30] required to support both the
[1:26:32] environmental flow need and there's only
[1:26:36] like the bank account account
[1:26:37] analogology analogy there's there's $7
[1:26:41] million [laughter]
[1:26:43] in in the bank account um and and the
[1:26:46] withdrawals are getting higher. So, it's
[1:26:48] just it we're like the amount of water
[1:26:50] that's available is at the dam. Um so,
[1:26:53] in order to um to reduce the amount of
[1:26:58] withdrawals, both the community demand
[1:27:00] and and the environmental flow need um
[1:27:02] have both been reduced like need to be
[1:27:04] reduced in order to sort of conserve
[1:27:06] that that storage for the long over the
[1:27:09] longer period because it is you can also
[1:27:11] see how much longer the the releases are
[1:27:14] from the down as well. Yeah.
[1:27:16] >> So, there's a second part of that
[1:27:17] question. Thank you. As well that maybe
[1:27:19] I'll let you get to, but before uh that
[1:27:21] part, it could be other things I didn't
[1:27:23] mention as well, like maybe like
[1:27:25] forestry practices upstream or uh
[1:27:28] changes in the land um ge geographically
[1:27:31] or whatever that the water is not
[1:27:32] necessarily making its way down where it
[1:27:34] used to uh hydrogeeology or whatever. Um
[1:27:38] so there are a number of factors that
[1:27:39] could affect that. Um but then it does
[1:27:42] raise the question around whether the um provincial legislation sort of
[1:27:47] the agreement around the water license
[1:27:50] uh is still appropriate given uh where
[1:27:53] you know things have changed since that
[1:27:54] was put in place. Uh and on that as well
[1:27:58] is that the the flow requirement that
[1:28:00] does trigger the um the need to put in
[1:28:03] watering restrictions that gauge um is measuring the post uh human use
[1:28:11] number. Right? So the gauge is past the
[1:28:13] intake but we have to provide but the
[1:28:16] flow rate that we're expected to provide
[1:28:18] based on the provincial uh operating
[1:28:21] licenses that happens uh that amount
[1:28:25] includes the human use and the EFN right
[1:28:29] >> um
[1:28:30] >> like what is the what is the number that
[1:28:31] we have to provide for the habitat?
[1:28:35] >> Yeah. So, so currently the the um based
[1:28:38] on ongoing conversations with with the
[1:28:41] regulator um with First Nation, there's an ag there's an agreement right
[1:28:47] now on a on a temporary basis to
[1:28:51] establish the the flow downstream of the
[1:28:54] intake. So, the flow in the river from
[1:28:56] the intake to the ocean where the gauge
[1:28:59] is located is is 1 cubic meter per
[1:29:01] second. Um and and so the flow upstream
[1:29:04] of the intake is 1 meter per second plus
[1:29:08] whatever the community is using at the
[1:29:10] time. Um and so so it it's that one
[1:29:15] cubic meter per second doesn't include
[1:29:16] the community withdrawal. It's it's in
[1:29:19] addition to um the community withdrawal
[1:29:21] or the community withdrawal is in
[1:29:22] addition to that, I guess, is maybe
[1:29:23] another way of of putting it. the amount
[1:29:26] that you're having that's being released
[1:29:27] from the dam um needs to both provide
[1:29:31] the community withdrawal as well as
[1:29:34] maintain one cubic meter per second.
[1:29:36] It's not it's not necessarily it's not
[1:29:38] releasing the full 1 cubic meter per
[1:29:40] second. There is a contribution from the
[1:29:42] base flows in the river that are adding
[1:29:44] to that
[1:29:45] >> but it's um the the measurement point in
[1:29:49] that 1 cubic meter per second.
[1:29:50] >> Yeah. I'm talking about the point at
[1:29:51] which it's measured.
[1:29:52] >> Yeah. uh that being one cubic meter per
[1:29:55] second but that one cubic meter per
[1:29:58] second sorry are you saying that is
[1:30:00] including both uses or just the EFN
[1:30:02] >> just the EFN
[1:30:03] >> cuz uh somewhere else I think it was in
[1:30:05] the report I think it was more around 7
[1:30:07] to 0.9
[1:30:09] uh and then also the uh if we look back
[1:30:14] the the graph that councelor Wood
[1:30:16] provided is that in fact prior to the
[1:30:18] dam the flow rates were much lower than
[1:30:20] even that. So uh and I'm not a
[1:30:23] biologist. I know you're not a biologist
[1:30:24] either, but I do understand that uh
[1:30:27] there is a certain level of uh dynamics
[1:30:29] to a river that are natural and that are healthy for habitat uh from the
[1:30:34] ecologists that I do speak to. So that
[1:30:37] having a continuous flat flow rate
[1:30:40] throughout the whole year may not
[1:30:41] actually be the the optimal uh habitat
[1:30:44] creating flow rate. Um but that may be
[1:30:48] the assumption that is being like
[1:30:49] current that when that deal was put in
[1:30:52] place low those years ago uh that may
[1:30:56] have been the science of the time but is
[1:30:57] that still the science? So that's where
[1:31:00] I'm saying, and this may be beyond your
[1:31:02] purview, but um it seems to me that we
[1:31:04] may be able to um the fact that the
[1:31:08] watering restrictions and the
[1:31:09] reliability that this whole report
[1:31:10] hinges on is potentially based on the
[1:31:14] water license with the province that
[1:31:16] itself, and I know staff is looking into
[1:31:17] this, may need to be looked at as a way
[1:31:20] to actually increase the reliability if
[1:31:22] we don't have to put in stage 4 watering
[1:31:24] restrictions because it's not due to the
[1:31:26] fact that that's the the watering
[1:31:28] restrictions aren't based on the the the
[1:31:31] use of the community that much as they
[1:31:32] are based on the flow in the river. So,
[1:31:35] and that water license that the the
[1:31:37] letter of the law uh that sort of
[1:31:40] bureaucratic requirement that may or may
[1:31:41] not be current science. I don't know
[1:31:44] this is some ponderings [laughter] and
[1:31:46] maybe beyond your purview.
[1:31:48] >> Um
[1:31:50] I can I'll provide some comments on it u
[1:31:52] from from the hydraology side. Um so the
[1:31:56] and and sort of based on some of the
[1:31:58] previous work that that has been done
[1:32:00] and I've been involved with um when so
[1:32:04] the the.7
[1:32:06] um cubic meters per second that's been
[1:32:08] established as the critical
[1:32:10] environmental flow need. So that's
[1:32:12] essentially it's been established that a
[1:32:15] flow below that rate will will
[1:32:18] incrementally start to cause uh impacts
[1:32:21] to to the habitat. Um so it would kind
[1:32:25] of go from it being um uh fair, let's
[1:32:29] say, to poor um on a on a scale. Um the
[1:32:35] so the the one cubic meter per sec. So,
[1:32:38] and then that was established by DFO
[1:32:41] back in the '9s when uh the dam was
[1:32:44] first constructed.
[1:32:46] There was a study done as part of the construction for the new intake that did um habitat simulation modeling
[1:32:56] uh for the reach of the river from the
[1:32:57] intake to the ocean. And essentially
[1:32:59] what that's looking at is what's the
[1:33:01] what is the um value of that habitat
[1:33:05] from a from a a habit productivity
[1:33:08] perspective um versus the flow and and
[1:33:13] it's kind of like a hockey stick. It's
[1:33:15] it and and interestingly the modeling
[1:33:18] was showing that 7 is about right um in
[1:33:21] terms of that critical point where that
[1:33:23] the the the value of the habitat um for
[1:33:26] the different fish species really starts
[1:33:28] to drop off. The only one that isn't um
[1:33:33] is is the PAR which are sort of that
[1:33:36] intermediate stage um of of the fish and
[1:33:39] it's really more of a kind of a straight
[1:33:40] line. So like for them it's sort of like
[1:33:42] more flow is better, right? And so it's
[1:33:44] trying to find that happy balance of of
[1:33:46] what is um what's appropriate and based
[1:33:50] on conversations um with the regulators
[1:33:54] and it's not it's not just the
[1:33:55] regulatory biologist, it's also the the
[1:33:58] fisheries biologists at at the province
[1:34:00] and at DFO. Um there's been agreement
[1:34:04] that that one cubic meter every second
[1:34:06] is is a suitable target. Um, the
[1:34:10] original
[1:34:12] EFN was established based on a policy. I
[1:34:16] I'm not sure of the status of that
[1:34:17] policy anymore, but it used to be based
[1:34:20] on a metric that was 10% of the mean
[1:34:24] annual flow in the river is what the
[1:34:26] flow should be. and and that was based
[1:34:29] on on some some studies that have been
[1:34:32] done across BC and in the states around
[1:34:35] looking at what a sort of suitable
[1:34:37] target should be and that was what that
[1:34:39] was established at. Um I can't remember
[1:34:42] the number off the top of my head but I
[1:34:44] believe it was about 1.2 was what was
[1:34:47] originally established. Um so just in
[1:34:49] terms of like that the new one is
[1:34:52] actually a little bit below that now. Um
[1:34:54] and so yeah, so it's it and also based
[1:34:58] on that habitat simulation modeling 1
[1:35:00] cubic meter per second uh is a
[1:35:04] reasonable target to provide
[1:35:07] um reasonable habitat function in the
[1:35:10] river but granted it is higher than what
[1:35:14] used to be there before in the natural
[1:35:16] system. Yeah. And but I can't get into
[1:35:19] sort of the benefits of that both sort
[1:35:22] of locally for the watershed but also
[1:35:24] regionally because it's sort of there's
[1:35:25] both of those kind of two two components
[1:35:27] to that.
[1:35:28] >> Okay. C council I'm going to um we're
[1:35:30] striving I I'll be striving to adjourn
[1:35:33] by 12:30 but at that time I want time
[1:35:36] anyways to make the recommendations as
[1:35:38] well. I'm going to take a couple more
[1:35:40] questions but please keep it brief if
[1:35:42] you can. Councelor P has had his hand
[1:35:44] up. Councelor Fra, Councelor Bill, and and councelor Martin. Okay, go. I'll
[1:35:50] try to keep mine quick. I just wanted to
[1:35:52] know about the spillover of the dam. If
[1:35:54] you have any information that we can see
[1:35:55] like this where it shows how frequently,
[1:35:58] you know, what time periods we've had
[1:35:59] that spillover. So, if we're considering
[1:36:01] raising the dam, you know, I'd like to
[1:36:03] know when is that opportunity and how
[1:36:05] much opportunity are we looking at.
[1:36:07] >> Um, yeah. So, I think if we go back to
[1:36:10] the previous slide, it has the water
[1:36:12] levels over time. Um
[1:36:14] so this is a short um uh so the so the
[1:36:19] orange um the orange and the green lines
[1:36:23] are also showing like the median water
[1:36:26] levels in the reservoir and when the
[1:36:28] reservoir is full at the top of the
[1:36:29] graph there that's when it's filling.
[1:36:31] though in most years um it does fill but
[1:36:34] there are there are some years where it
[1:36:37] hasn't and that's that sort of gray dash
[1:36:40] line along the bottom that's the minimum
[1:36:42] lake level that's ever that's been
[1:36:44] recorded on that specific day. So it's
[1:36:47] not
[1:36:47] >> does this have a time frame associated
[1:36:49] with it? Like what are we
[1:36:51] >> Yeah.
[1:36:53] So the the the lower gray dash line
[1:36:58] >> Yeah. is is the minimum water level. And
[1:37:01] so there have been there have been years
[1:37:03] in the historical record where the lake
[1:37:05] hasn't refilled because of limitations
[1:37:07] in the inflow. And those would really be
[1:37:09] what is what would drive the reliability
[1:37:12] for the system. Um so on average, yeah,
[1:37:15] there's there there's sufficient there
[1:37:17] is sufficient flow. Um but it's those
[1:37:21] year-over-year drought conditions where
[1:37:24] it wouldn't refill or may not refill. Do
[1:37:27] we have any idea how much spillover
[1:37:29] we're talking about there too? Because
[1:37:31] if it's just reaching the top, it could,
[1:37:32] you know, we call it spillover, but with
[1:37:35] barely any versus it's spilling over a
[1:37:37] ton.
[1:37:37] >> Yeah. So the um
[1:37:41] again, I'm just going from from memory
[1:37:44] from from work, but the so the the total
[1:37:47] volume is about nine 9 million cubic
[1:37:49] meters. So there's 7 million cubic
[1:37:52] meters of active storage and there's two
[1:37:54] million cubic meters of of emergency
[1:37:58] storage and the reason why it's
[1:37:59] emergency storage is because it has a
[1:38:00] limited amount of flow that can be
[1:38:02] released and it doesn't meet the
[1:38:03] environmental flow need target. Um so
[1:38:05] there's 9 million cubic meters of total
[1:38:07] storage. The average inflow on an annual
[1:38:10] basis to the Aerosmith wershed and this
[1:38:12] is based on data like before the dam was
[1:38:15] constructed. Um, so that's in the 90s I
[1:38:18] believe was in around 12 to 14. So, so
[1:38:23] it's a fairly like that 9 million is a
[1:38:25] pretty large percentage of the the just
[1:38:29] the the average. So there's there's that
[1:38:31] extra say like
[1:38:35] anywhere from four to six million extra
[1:38:38] on on average in a in a year, but that's
[1:38:40] the average. Yeah. Okay. Councelor Bill
[1:38:44] and then councelor Martin.
[1:38:46] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you
[1:38:47] again. Uh, I guess I'm going to go back
[1:38:50] to uh, Councelor Gore's sweet spot idea.
[1:38:53] And I guess what I'm hoping for, in
[1:38:54] fact, what I am hoping for is that we
[1:38:57] could eventually end up with uh upland
[1:39:01] storage that will be um sufficient to
[1:39:05] provide the EFN as well as additional
[1:39:09] waters for the community for a longer
[1:39:11] period than we have allowing for even no
[1:39:15] snowpack but uh longer drought etc.
[1:39:19] as well as um looking at our aquifer and
[1:39:25] one of the notions in our OCP is that we would be a sustainable city. So
[1:39:31] I part of that I think for me means that
[1:39:33] we're not actually going to other
[1:39:34] aquifers that we're doing everything
[1:39:36] that we can to improve the health of the
[1:39:38] aquifer that we have and I don't know if
[1:39:41] that uh if much of that would be within
[1:39:44] phase two if it was with your company.
[1:39:47] uh it also may be things that we can be
[1:39:49] doing you know at the city level but I
[1:39:51] do believe that there's more that we
[1:39:52] could be doing but nonetheless uh
[1:39:55] looking at that upland storage and
[1:39:58] providing more water for the community
[1:40:02] should also allow the aquifer to further
[1:40:05] recharge as well as additional
[1:40:07] conservation methods and I I do think
[1:40:10] that we need to continue to look at
[1:40:11] conservation and a couple of points that
[1:40:13] councelor Gren has made made around you
[1:40:16] values and looking going forward in 10,
[1:40:19] 20, 30 years, you know, what does what
[1:40:21] does the ideal yard look like? I don't
[1:40:24] know. But is that something that um you
[1:40:27] know, having those two parts come
[1:40:28] together of both upland storage for the
[1:40:31] health of the river and also allowing
[1:40:35] for uh a healthier aquifer without
[1:40:38] having to go outside the one that we're
[1:40:41] using now?
[1:40:44] Um did you want to provide comment on
[1:40:47] that first side?
[1:40:49] >> Sure. Yeah. Um yeah, at this point we're looking at optimizing the existing
[1:40:55] groundwater usage within the existing
[1:40:58] license volume available.
[1:41:00] Um so yeah for the for the long term if
[1:41:03] there is a new source storage water
[1:41:05] source uh provided or constructed then the groundwater use would would
[1:41:11] probably stay similar as it is today and
[1:41:13] if we're in a sort of inclining trend or
[1:41:17] improving to be more healthy then
[1:41:18] hopefully that would continue.
[1:41:22] Okay, great.
[1:41:23] >> And my understanding is that um that
[1:41:26] some of the steps that could be taken
[1:41:27] within the city both on city land as
[1:41:29] well on private land could in fact
[1:41:32] increase the amount of groundwater that
[1:41:34] is you know water rainwater that is
[1:41:36] going into the ground and that in turn
[1:41:38] should also improve the health of local
[1:41:41] streams and ultimately get to the river
[1:41:43] as well. Would it not?
[1:41:46] >> Council. Yeah, absolutely. any um
[1:41:48] further storm water storm water
[1:41:50] management practices that would
[1:41:52] encourage infiltration are definitely of
[1:41:54] benefit. And uh and of course the water
[1:41:57] conservation in itself to uh to sort of
[1:42:01] beef up your existing water conservation
[1:42:03] program to to use less water during the
[1:42:06] summer months and and allow for it to to
[1:42:08] exist where it is.
[1:42:10] >> Thank you, Councelor Martin. Go ahead.
[1:42:13] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I really uh
[1:42:15] would like to see if you would give us
[1:42:17] say A, B, or C. What would be the most
[1:42:20] not necessarily the cheapest, the most
[1:42:22] practical long-term solution to this?
[1:42:25] Because I was hoping today that we would
[1:42:27] have that because you're the
[1:42:29] professionals that know, you've given us
[1:42:31] a report, but a decision to understand
[1:42:34] what would be best for us. And like
[1:42:36] counselor Frazz was saying, not
[1:42:38] necessarily the, you know, the cheapest,
[1:42:41] but the the wisest for long term because
[1:42:44] we're going a long term for this. So, do
[1:42:46] you have any solutions that you can give
[1:42:48] us? What should we do? Really,
[1:42:52] the practical thing, smart thing,
[1:42:55] because that's what I would like.
[1:42:57] >> Well, you know, a report. This is a big
[1:43:00] report and you understand it way more
[1:43:02] than any one of us. So what what would
[1:43:04] you do if you were making that decision?
[1:43:08] >> What would you do?
[1:43:09] >> Thank Martin. Um
[1:43:13] so
[1:43:15] [snorts]
[1:43:15] one of the challenges is that
[1:43:19] unfortunately there's not kind of a
[1:43:21] clear solution in the in the level of
[1:43:24] the analysis that was done. Um and so I
[1:43:28] think in terms of the decision for me if
[1:43:32] it was if it was my decision to be
[1:43:34] making um would be to kind of go to that
[1:43:37] next step of provide like of of
[1:43:39] evaluating the the um options that have
[1:43:43] been identified in this preliminary
[1:43:45] study um in in a bit more detail. It's
[1:43:48] not it's not there isn't sort of a clear
[1:43:50] direction at this at this at this point
[1:43:52] um because of the um the at the level of
[1:43:57] which this study was was preliminary to
[1:44:01] kind of set the next stage for that
[1:44:03] phase two was to sort of help with
[1:44:06] firstly um sort of establishing how much
[1:44:09] water is needed um and then and then
[1:44:12] secondly start to look at some options
[1:44:15] but there's there's more work needed to
[1:44:18] be able to to make that final decision.
[1:44:21] >> So, you can't give us
[1:44:24] options. Okay.
[1:44:25] >> Because I know our our citizens are are
[1:44:28] concerned and we are and we want to make
[1:44:30] sure we're doing the wisest thing.
[1:44:32] That's all.
[1:44:33] >> So, we have to Okay. Thank you.
[1:44:36] >> Okay. Thank you. That's I'm going to
[1:44:38] have to wrap it up. Um these people
[1:44:40] probably have other work to go back to
[1:44:41] their job, but um council I'm going to
[1:44:44] be looking for um a recommendation
[1:44:46] resolution anyways um to just my my
[1:44:50] belief is we've had a lot of good
[1:44:51] comments and there's a lot of
[1:44:53] understanding anyways of what is
[1:44:55] possible and I understand phase two
[1:44:57] there was a list of things that they
[1:44:59] could possibly look at would be looking
[1:45:01] direction but I'm I'm suggesting at this
[1:45:04] particular time that we have KWL look at
[1:45:07] the possibilities as We spoke earlier of
[1:45:10] just the sidestream storage option which
[1:45:13] then once we have that question answered
[1:45:15] then there may be some money left over.
[1:45:18] Then then we look at what we do with
[1:45:21] that information. But we have to have
[1:45:22] that as to say that if we had sidestream
[1:45:26] storage with reservoir capacity is going
[1:45:28] to in charge um protect or improve our
[1:45:31] acryers which is one of our goals as
[1:45:33] well as council has mentioned which is
[1:45:35] good. At the same time, it may delay us
[1:45:37] actually have to look for more
[1:45:39] groundwater sources at at the same time.
[1:45:41] I think we have to have that question
[1:45:43] answered first before we make the
[1:45:45] decisions before we go anywhere further.
[1:45:48] And I I would suggest if we I could make
[1:45:50] that recommendation as to continuing on
[1:45:53] with phase two as a phased approach and
[1:45:57] uh with uh uh phase two would just
[1:46:00] consist of that and then that would be
[1:46:02] brought back to council with that
[1:46:03] information and then we say okay where
[1:46:05] are we going to either make this happen
[1:46:07] and then we make the recommendations
[1:46:09] back. Do I have approval for councel to
[1:46:12] second that motion?
[1:46:18] Um
[1:46:22] yeah yeah yeah for recommendation would
[1:46:25] be that uh the KWL look into the options
[1:46:28] for the sid stream of the uh excess uh
[1:46:32] fall and winter rains to uh provide a
[1:46:36] phased approach for reservoirs in the
[1:46:38] vicinity of Parksville instead of up on
[1:46:40] the highlands. possibly considering
[1:46:42] looking at industrial land uh that we
[1:46:44] have in our industrial park as a portion
[1:46:47] of it as well as mosaic lands which is
[1:46:50] the next coastal because we don't have
[1:46:52] ground lands here we have privately
[1:46:53] owned lands so just looking at those
[1:46:55] options first
[1:46:57] >> second it
[1:46:59] >> thank you council press any
[1:47:02] >> this is committ so this recommendation
[1:47:03] to council
[1:47:04] >> is this just recommendation from cootw
[1:47:07] then we'll go to councel
[1:47:10] Okay. Um
[1:47:12] Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Uh on the motion
[1:47:15] on the floor. Thank you.
[1:47:17] >> Yeah. Yes. Go ahead, council.
[1:47:18] >> Oh, thank you. I'm just wondering if um
[1:47:23] is it also make some sense to perhaps
[1:47:25] have an alternate recommendation so that
[1:47:28] if this one is not supported that
[1:47:31] there's something else that would come
[1:47:32] forward or are we going to be sort of
[1:47:35] prevoting on the recommendation so that
[1:47:38] then we have a motion to take to the
[1:47:40] actual meeting. I'm sorry I'm not clear
[1:47:42] on that. I I agree and having made that
[1:47:44] motion, I I think KW understands that
[1:47:48] that's what I'm looking for. As council
[1:47:50] Martin says, we want a solution and
[1:47:52] councelor Martin's right. So we want
[1:47:54] your your solution that would include
[1:47:56] that and if the side storage
[1:47:59] doesn't pan out to be looking like a
[1:48:01] good suggestion. And I think KWL is
[1:48:02] going to come back and said however
[1:48:05] speaking to the solution we recommend
[1:48:08] this and and I I think you understand
[1:48:11] that's what we're looking at correct is
[1:48:12] that guys you know
[1:48:15] >> so quick followup one thing that I heard
[1:48:17] earlier and correct me if I'm wrong is
[1:48:19] that it would be more likely to access
[1:48:22] uh provincial or federal funding if we
[1:48:25] were going with a one of the other
[1:48:28] options that would look at the creation
[1:48:30] of upland storage because that in fact
[1:48:33] directly affects then the environmental
[1:48:35] flow needs and involves DFO etc. Now did
[1:48:39] I misunder understand that or was that
[1:48:42] correct?
[1:48:43] >> I I think that's a possibility but
[1:48:45] that's exactly what it is. It's a
[1:48:47] possibility that you may get provincial
[1:48:49] um uh help on that which is actually was
[1:48:53] well I can't comment further because it
[1:48:55] was in camera but um uh on another uh
[1:48:59] Aerosmith uh meeting the AWS meeting
[1:49:03] previous so it's a possibility you're
[1:49:06] right councelor Bill councelor Fras go
[1:49:08] ahead
[1:49:08] >> okay just can I speak on this as a
[1:49:10] seconder I think where we're at right
[1:49:11] now as a committee to hold that this you
[1:49:14] know support this motion because is
[1:49:16] looking at an option for it. And since
[1:49:18] it wasn't part of the report for us to
[1:49:20] then be able to pick through where we're
[1:49:22] going to go, I I going to have to have
[1:49:24] more information on to where does that
[1:49:25] weigh into it. When I look at all these
[1:49:27] options and try to think long term, I
[1:49:29] think there's going to be more than one
[1:49:30] option that's going to come forward over
[1:49:32] the years. And so, it's a little bit
[1:49:34] more of like which order are we going to
[1:49:36] stack them in because I don't think this
[1:49:38] is the last time that we're going to be
[1:49:39] looking at uh water uh solutions for the
[1:49:43] community here. So, as far as side
[1:49:45] stream storage, uh, we need to consider
[1:49:49] what that looks like. Um, I'm not
[1:49:51] supporting this as the option we're
[1:49:53] moving forward on. I'm I'm putting into
[1:49:55] the pile and then I think we need to be
[1:49:57] looking at as in our at our council
[1:49:58] table. Uh, but for right now, need more
[1:50:01] information on it. I think it's worthy
[1:50:02] consideration. I don't understand the
[1:50:04] full implications of it. Uh, so I want
[1:50:06] to support our committee the whole so
[1:50:08] that it can be in the in the mix.
[1:50:10] >> Right. Yeah. Thank you. And I agree
[1:50:12] 100%. Councelor Fazad said if KWL comes
[1:50:14] back to us and says sidestream storage
[1:50:17] where do you live where the water is is
[1:50:18] not an option eliminate it. That's what
[1:50:21] I want to hear. That's part of like
[1:50:22] let's just take that off the table and
[1:50:24] then then we'll look for your other
[1:50:26] magic solution you pull up instead of I
[1:50:29] have great faith in you guys. Councelor
[1:50:31] Dory.
[1:50:32] >> Thank you through the mayor to our
[1:50:33] delegation. Um, can you perhaps make it
[1:50:37] very clear to me was the sidestream
[1:50:39] stories your number one option that you
[1:50:41] suggested to council because what I saw
[1:50:43] in the presentation was Shelton Healey
[1:50:46] which was previously identified as one
[1:50:48] of the viable options was also presented
[1:50:50] and uh thank you councelor Wood for
[1:50:52] doing the work on this as well. Um
[1:50:56] I would rather prefer us go to that
[1:50:59] option uh explore that one further in
[1:51:02] addition to looking at raising the
[1:51:04] Aerosmith dam which I think staff is
[1:51:06] also recommending in the report. Those
[1:51:08] would be two options that I would
[1:51:10] support at this time. Uh even though it
[1:51:13] is just the committee of the whole but I
[1:51:14] think [snorts] having the experts you've
[1:51:16] already done the work. I did not see the
[1:51:19] sidestream options as being the most
[1:51:21] viable and I'm sorry if I if I missed
[1:51:22] that. It's been a long meeting so
[1:51:24] correct me if I'm wrong.
[1:51:28] » Yeah. So in terms of
[1:51:32] doing going through the multiple
[1:51:34] accounts evaluation that we did um those
[1:51:37] two options came out a little bit higher
[1:51:40] than than fishtail and we had had um
[1:51:45] removed the offstream storage as as to go through like at the preliminary
[1:51:51] screening stage because of the the costs
[1:51:54] and and land like the relative costs and
[1:51:57] the land implications. So like the the
[1:52:02] highest ranking sites in the were
[1:52:04] Shelton and Healey that came out through
[1:52:06] the evaluation. So not saying that
[1:52:09] that's necessarily again looking at
[1:52:11] those individually, it's not necessarily
[1:52:12] the total correct solution on a phased
[1:52:18] approach, but it it it appeared to be
[1:52:20] the correct solutions for in terms of
[1:52:23] balancing across all the different
[1:52:24] criteria that we're looking at. um in
[1:52:26] terms of the the the direction to go.
[1:52:30] >> Thank you. If I may follow up.
[1:52:31] >> So So if we could rephrase it to say
[1:52:33] that the possible solutions could
[1:52:35] include looking at the Healey Aerosmith
[1:52:38] Dam
[1:52:38] >> Shelton Healey Lake and raising the
[1:52:39] Aerosmith dam storage.
[1:52:41] >> Well, that would be a separate motion
[1:52:42] altogether. It looks like CEO. So
[1:52:46] >> Oh, hi CEO Kaylor.
[1:52:48] >> Sorry to interrupt. Um thank you mayor
[1:52:50] through you. Um, I just wanted to remind
[1:52:52] council we did have a motion that was
[1:52:54] presented that was deferred for
[1:52:56] consideration until after the committee
[1:52:58] the whole takes place. And so what we
[1:53:00] will be looking for at some point is um
[1:53:04] kind of what councelor Gore is talking
[1:53:05] about and what you've been talking about
[1:53:06] mayor Brian is an order of priority for
[1:53:09] that phase two. So what we wrote just
[1:53:12] for council's recommendation or sorry um
[1:53:14] to remind council the recommendation was
[1:53:17] that council consider the priorities and
[1:53:19] timing for the water use planning and
[1:53:21] management study phase 2 scope of work
[1:53:24] and it was deferred until after this
[1:53:26] committee the whole um and that we would
[1:53:28] get a quote from Kerwood Lidell on that
[1:53:30] scope. So if there's five things that
[1:53:33] council wants um to be advanced, we
[1:53:36] would be then working with the
[1:53:37] consultant to get a quote on whether
[1:53:39] that 430 remainder um meets that budget.
[1:53:43] So just as a reminder of kind of the
[1:53:44] next step,
[1:53:45] >> right? So so I I would hope that with
[1:53:47] the amended motion anyways that would do
[1:53:49] exactly that.
[1:53:51] >> So sorry, mayor. I I think that looks
[1:53:54] like CEO, you can correct me, but this
[1:53:56] motion is very different than the
[1:53:58] original motion from the mayor, which is
[1:54:00] a very different direction. So, is it uh
[1:54:02] a new motion? We'll have to vote on this
[1:54:04] unless uh mayor you want to withdraw and
[1:54:06] present this as an option.
[1:54:08] >> No, what what it is is actually just
[1:54:11] defining instead phase two, the the the
[1:54:13] planned one was was a whole bunch of
[1:54:15] options. If you look at what it was, it
[1:54:17] was huge. Yeah. And including
[1:54:18] conservation and piping and
[1:54:20] infrastructure and so forth. I don't
[1:54:21] want to touch that right now. That's why
[1:54:23] I want to define it. We we have to focus
[1:54:25] and define this right now people. And if
[1:54:28] it means for your satisfaction Yeah. And
[1:54:30] that we include the uh possibility of
[1:54:34] the Healey Shelton and also across uh
[1:54:37] aeros storage. I'm definitely in favor
[1:54:40] of amending my motion to that. Councelor
[1:54:43] Frazz, do you agree to the amending?
[1:54:47] I had a different uh thought and
[1:54:50] question here in my go ahead. But also
[1:54:51] to amend it though it can we may not
[1:54:53] have separate ones come out of here
[1:54:55] though like we can have separate op they
[1:54:56] don't have to all be brought together
[1:54:58] under one. I think your motion to
[1:55:00] >> Oh you mean that's what you want two
[1:55:02] motions like one?
[1:55:03] >> Yeah. I mean we can we can bring
[1:55:04] multiple recommendations out of the
[1:55:06] committee here and I and I think we
[1:55:07] should uh in this case I believe that
[1:55:10] we're asking for this information aside
[1:55:11] storage. It sounds like you guys had
[1:55:13] already done some work on it and it just
[1:55:15] didn't meet the criteria that cut. So,
[1:55:17] it wasn't included, but it should seem
[1:55:18] like an easy one to bring back now if
[1:55:20] we're just saying, "Hey, that
[1:55:21] information that you put aside. Let's bring it back in the report so we
[1:55:23] can look at it." I think that's I think
[1:55:26] it's an easy
[1:55:26] >> Okay, good suggestion. Let's leave the
[1:55:28] original motion on the floor and then
[1:55:29] we'll look for another motion on the
[1:55:31] floor to do an additional one. Does that
[1:55:33] work for you, Council? Y.
[1:55:34] >> Okay. Thanks.
[1:55:35] >> Okay. Uh, speaking to the motion on the
[1:55:37] floor. Yes. Go ahead, Councelor.
[1:55:39] >> Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And given the
[1:55:42] fact that when I had read the report
[1:55:43] earlier and when we had presentations
[1:55:45] earlier and that the sidoom storage was
[1:55:49] not recommended due to costs and the
[1:55:52] amount of land that would be needed etc.
[1:55:54] For all of those reasons with respect to
[1:55:56] the mayor I can't support this.
[1:55:58] >> Thank you. Uh councelor Wood go ahead.
[1:56:01] >> Thank you mayor. I'll start by by saying
[1:56:03] I understand uh why the sideream storage
[1:56:08] seems to make sense on the surface of it
[1:56:10] because we have so much water that flows
[1:56:13] down all winter. Hey, can we can we save
[1:56:17] some of it? Um, but when I try to get my
[1:56:21] head around the amount of water and the
[1:56:23] size of the hole that's 3 or 4 meters
[1:56:25] deep, um, for the engineering [snorts]
[1:56:28] of this, from the people I've spoken to
[1:56:32] in this report, it just is prohibitively
[1:56:35] expensive with permitting and everything
[1:56:37] else. And at first, I thought it was a
[1:56:40] good idea, but I just can't support
[1:56:42] this. Um I my my take is I'd love to see
[1:56:46] this committee make three
[1:56:47] recommendations
[1:56:49] to uh our regular council meeting. One
[1:56:51] is for a water conservation plan. Um and
[1:56:55] one is for upland storage. And we need
[1:56:57] you know either C or D estimates to get
[1:57:00] grants or other funding.
[1:57:03] Those could be for raising the existing
[1:57:05] Aerosmith Dam as well as Shelton and
[1:57:08] Healey Lakes. Um, and then the third one
[1:57:11] is to provide some grant research to see
[1:57:16] what's available for senior government
[1:57:17] funding because what I don't want to see
[1:57:20] is the majority of this being on
[1:57:22] property taxes. So, those are the three
[1:57:25] that I'd like to see, but that's aside
[1:57:26] from your motion, but I can't support um
[1:57:28] sidestream storage. Thanks.
[1:57:30] Don't you think we could include that in
[1:57:32] the next phase after we have this
[1:57:34] initial like I'm trying to keep it very
[1:57:37] simple here councelor wood is I'm trying
[1:57:39] to keep it just for the storage and so
[1:57:41] forth and then we're going to get that
[1:57:42] information back let's either you can't
[1:57:44] see it working in reservoirs I have
[1:57:46] people advising me on the outside that
[1:57:49] it will work okay but I want now the
[1:57:52] experts to tell us whether it's possible
[1:57:53] to work so let's let them tell us what
[1:57:56] it's going to be not our sources on the
[1:57:58] outside that say it should work
[1:57:59] absolutely Absolutely. Um let's let's
[1:58:02] eliminate that or approve it. That's all I'm asking for here. We
[1:58:07] can't, you know, um just bypass it and
[1:58:10] go to the next phase. That's all. But
[1:58:12] anyways, that's that's why I'm it's it's
[1:58:14] here. Anyways, so
[1:58:15] >> yeah, I'm kind of envisioning to answer
[1:58:17] your question, mayor, I'm kind of
[1:58:18] envisioning these would probably be two
[1:58:20] different RFPs. One is for a company to
[1:58:22] do a water conservation plan.
[1:58:23] >> No. Um
[1:58:24] >> no, no, no, no, no. Not not in this
[1:58:26] motion here.
[1:58:28] >> No, no, no. that will follow through in
[1:58:30] phase two after we get this preliminary
[1:58:33] information.
[1:58:34] >> Yeah. And then a second RFP for class CD
[1:58:37] upland water storage for raising
[1:58:39] Aerosent Dam Shelton Healey Lakes. And
[1:58:42] then the third motion would just be to
[1:58:44] staff to look at um the provincial
[1:58:47] funding, but I can't support this motion
[1:58:48] as it is. Thanks.
[1:58:51] >> Gotcha. Fries.
[1:58:53] >> So uh through the mayor council. I think
[1:58:55] the important part of this motion though
[1:58:56] is that when we move forward from here,
[1:58:59] this idea will still exist and the
[1:59:01] people that weren't here in the meeting
[1:59:03] today or hear that, oh, this, you know,
[1:59:04] we we've considered it. We there's
[1:59:06] nothing that we can point to and say,
[1:59:07] look, there's the work and why it
[1:59:09] doesn't why it's not a good option. I
[1:59:10] think we need to be able to put it to
[1:59:12] bed or it'll just keep resurfacing again
[1:59:14] and again. So, this isn't to suggest
[1:59:16] that this is the option that we're going
[1:59:17] to go with, but if this information
[1:59:19] didn't make it to the report, let's
[1:59:20] bring it into there so that that we can
[1:59:23] cross it off the list. So, we have
[1:59:24] something to point to. Otherwise, just
[1:59:25] hearsay over and over and it'll keep
[1:59:27] coming back for years. Like I said, this
[1:59:29] is not going to be the last time we're
[1:59:30] dealing with the water uh issue. And I'm
[1:59:33] sure this idea will just surface again.
[1:59:34] And if it doesn't make the report again,
[1:59:36] it we'll just be back to the square one.
[1:59:38] So, I think it it let's get the
[1:59:40] information and then we can cross it off
[1:59:42] the list if it's not if it's really not
[1:59:44] going to work out.
[1:59:47] >> One more. Uh counc.
[1:59:49] >> Yes. Just quick comment to our CEO. We
[1:59:52] want all this information. I'm not
[1:59:53] against the information, but we are
[1:59:55] working with a budget as you mentioned
[1:59:56] about $440,000 and I don't want to put
[1:59:59] you on the spot to give in a quote on
[2:00:01] this. But the more information we seek,
[2:00:04] the more we draw into that that money
[2:00:05] that we have and if we have these big
[2:00:07] options, do you think in your opinion
[2:00:09] we'll be able to get that information on
[2:00:11] what the three information we we seek
[2:00:13] from councelor Wood just mentioned and
[2:00:15] the sideream storage would be be able to
[2:00:17] get all this information within the
[2:00:19] budget for the phase 2 that we have.
[2:00:23] if I may through the mayor.
[2:00:24] >> Okay. Okay.
[2:00:25] >> Sorry. Thank you. Um the motion that we
[2:00:27] presented to council was to work with
[2:00:29] the consultant to get a budget on the
[2:00:31] scope that you recommend as council. And
[2:00:34] I assume the more work they have to do,
[2:00:37] the more money it will cost.
[2:00:40] >> Yeah, that's I've already asked that
[2:00:42] question. It was very first. I said, can
[2:00:43] you do what I asked on the first one
[2:00:45] under 431,000?
[2:00:48] So why why why go another stand and and we know it it I mean just that
[2:00:54] that's why I'm keeping it simple like
[2:00:55] not look at all the the conservation
[2:00:57] infrastructure requirements because that
[2:01:00] maybe would exceed 431,000
[2:01:02] we already have that all we're saying is
[2:01:04] we we want the the consultants to come
[2:01:06] up with something right now because
[2:01:07] believe me we're taking huge heat for
[2:01:10] these wa these water restrictions that
[2:01:12] are in place right now. I tell you, it's
[2:01:14] the I can't walk down the street without
[2:01:17] people actually
[2:01:19] being very upset and disappointed with what we've done by doing nothing.
[2:01:24] So these gentlemen here, as council
[2:01:27] Martin says, give us a solution. I'm
[2:01:29] hoping that they come up with some
[2:01:30] alternate solutions and if it means
[2:01:32] Morard and Healey and then that's fine
[2:01:34] as well. But that's all I want to do at
[2:01:36] this committee, the whole meeting today.
[2:01:38] I'm going to call the question. All
[2:01:40] those in favor of the motion on the
[2:01:41] floor.
[2:01:45] Those opposed.
[2:01:47] Okay, that's great. Okay, we're done.
[2:01:49] Okay, I'd like to ask thank you very
[2:01:51] much, gentlemen, for everything that
[2:01:52] you've done here today and u we'll
[2:01:56] you'll be hearing from us sometime in
[2:01:58] the future, I guess.
[2:02:00] Thank you.
[2:02:01] >> I would like to make a subsequent motion
[2:02:02] now.
[2:02:03] >> No, I'm calling for a German uh like a
[2:02:06] motion to adjurnn.
[2:02:08] There needs to be recommendation to the
[2:02:10] council.
[2:02:12] I would like to uh make a motion that
[2:02:15] council look at perhaps Shelton and
[2:02:17] Healey Lake as a upland storage option
[2:02:20] and further that u council direct staff
[2:02:24] to look at raising the capacity of the
[2:02:26] airmith dam and further looking at uh
[2:02:30] the conservation guidelines
[2:02:32] uh
[2:02:34] conservation guidelines for the
[2:02:36] community including residential,
[2:02:37] commercial and the resort areas
[2:02:39] something along those lines. Thank you.
[2:02:45] » Yeah.
[2:02:47] No.
[2:02:48] Is there a second?
[2:02:50] >> I'll second that.
[2:02:54] >> Council Frazz, go ahead.
[2:02:55] >> Okay. Council, uh, we have these Sean
[2:02:58] notes prepared here. I was really hoping
[2:02:59] to hear uh, things come out of it
[2:03:02] because I I liked what I was reading out
[2:03:04] of here, too. Uh, so this motion kind of
[2:03:06] dips into that as well. Um
[2:03:09] maybe maybe Sean can speak to this. I
[2:03:11] was hoping he'd have a chance to raise a
[2:03:12] motion first.
[2:03:15] >> Counc. Thank you, mayor. I did uh send
[2:03:18] staff uh motions for these. Um the first
[2:03:22] one is motion one, water conservation
[2:03:24] plan. that the committee the whole
[2:03:26] recommend that council direct staff to
[2:03:28] include in the scope of phase 2 water
[2:03:30] use planning and management study the
[2:03:32] preparation of a compre comprehensive
[2:03:34] water conservation plan consistent with
[2:03:36] recommendation three of phase one of the
[2:03:37] final report um procured separately from
[2:03:41] a qualified water conservation
[2:03:42] specialist with a scope including risk
[2:03:45] benefit cost analysis of advanced
[2:03:48] metering infrastructure smart meters
[2:03:50] including leak detection and payback a
[2:03:53] review of the city's water rate
[2:03:54] structure including tiered pricing
[2:03:56] options that keep water for health,
[2:03:57] hygiene, and fire suppression affordable
[2:03:59] while pricing discretionary use to
[2:04:02] reflect its cost. An American Waterworks
[2:04:05] Association M36 water audit and water
[2:04:08] loss management plan, rainwater
[2:04:10] retention and aquifer recharge measures
[2:04:12] on city properties.
[2:04:15] >> How about just do your your last two?
[2:04:17] Let's not do all the background
[2:04:18] information.
[2:04:19] >> Yeah. So, the motions are
[2:04:20] >> of order. The problem is that we
[2:04:23] actually have a motion on the floor
[2:04:24] unless councelor Gore would like to
[2:04:26] withdraw that and we could have one
[2:04:28] other
[2:04:28] >> I'm happy to have that those motions
[2:04:30] that looks like there those are exactly
[2:04:32] the line of thought that I have. So I'm
[2:04:34] happy to include those three
[2:04:36] >> mayor. The short ones are definitely in
[2:04:38] what's in front of you, but I just
[2:04:39] wanted to make sure that the motions
[2:04:41] capture the detail of what we need.
[2:04:43] >> Are are you talking about the ask that
[2:04:45] phase 2 be
[2:04:47] >> scoped as two two jobs? Is that what
[2:04:49] you're saying?
[2:04:49] >> Yes. Yes, that's that one.
[2:04:51] >> Yes.
[2:04:51] >> Is that what you're talking about?
[2:04:53] >> Uh in addition, there will be uh the
[2:04:54] increasing the storage capacity at
[2:04:56] Aerosmith Dam.
[2:04:57] >> Yes. So that has been added since these
[2:04:59] notes because we did discuss it today.
[2:05:03] » It's a third anyways. Yeah.
[2:05:08] >> So
[2:05:08] >> I don't know what
[2:05:09] >> the motion on the floor unless councelor
[2:05:11] Wood wants to make it is the
[2:05:12] conservation plan be uh provided. Uh
[2:05:15] second design and costing of the upland
[2:05:17] storage at Shelton and Heily lakes and
[2:05:19] third would be increasing the capacity
[2:05:20] at Aerosmith dam would be including the
[2:05:22] scope of phase two.
[2:05:28] » I'm not sure how we can add more details
[2:05:29] to that later if that works.
[2:05:31] >> That's an opportunity.
[2:05:32] >> Would you agree to adding uh checking of
[2:05:34] the side streams that I messaged
[2:05:39] >> adding three to get my support
[2:05:41] >> if the budget allows within the budget?
[2:05:44] I and the timelines if we can meet if it
[2:05:46] does if the information is already
[2:05:48] available you've mentioned you've looked
[2:05:49] at this u it does not uh like I said
[2:05:53] take too much of our budget that we have
[2:05:55] and the timeline uh I'll include that as
[2:05:57] number four
[2:05:58] >> well then then I suggest if we add the
[2:06:01] size room storage as well into number
[2:06:03] three and then but make it to achieve a
[2:06:06] budget for uh the following three. I do
[2:06:09] have a procedural question for staff.
[2:06:10] Like since we just voted down the exact
[2:06:12] motion, like should it it appropriate to
[2:06:14] include this in in this motion now? And
[2:06:18] >> um if I may, we're in committee, so this
[2:06:20] has to be endorsed by council anyway. Um
[2:06:23] and I think it's fair because it's kind
[2:06:26] of a scope thing. So if it's all four of
[2:06:28] those things, again, our plan is to work
[2:06:30] with KWL to confirm that whatever
[2:06:32] priorities you vote on as a council,
[2:06:35] >> that that's within the budget. and if
[2:06:37] not come back and tell you what
[2:06:38] additional budget might be needed.
[2:06:40] >> Thank you to clarify that would be the last of the priorities in case we
[2:06:43] are not in the budget that should be
[2:06:45] excluded if you're not able to get in
[2:06:47] the budget with sidestream storage.
[2:06:51] » It would it would be based on all four
[2:06:53] of those things if that's okay because
[2:06:56] that's just
[2:06:57] >> if all four of those things.
[2:06:59] >> Okay,
[2:07:01] >> I'll second that. Okay,
[2:07:04] thank you.
[2:07:07] Everybody know the motion that's on the
[2:07:08] farm?
[2:07:11] >> Yes, you do. Or you want to
[2:07:14] >> just a question through yourself to
[2:07:16] staff if I may. Mayoring your motion.
[2:07:18] >> Are these um are these new RFPs or
[2:07:21] they're going to be within the current
[2:07:24] contract with KWL?
[2:07:26] >> If I may, I think we can sort that out
[2:07:27] before the council meeting. Um it
[2:07:29] depends on what council's intent is. We
[2:07:31] have current budget and a current amount
[2:07:33] allocated for phase 2. um we would have
[2:07:36] to work with KWL to make sure that that
[2:07:37] whatever you're asking is within their
[2:07:39] expertise and within a reasonable time
[2:07:41] frame and that it's work they can do. Um
[2:07:44] so it's not really a definitive
[2:07:46] decision. Um council is basically voting
[2:07:48] on the priorities and they're going to
[2:07:50] get them costed and come back to you.
[2:07:53] >> Does that work? Okay. All those in
[2:07:56] favor?
[2:07:58] Thank you. And those opposed? Councelor
[2:08:01] Gren is opposed. Thank you. Carries.
[2:08:05] Maybe it can go now. I don't know. I'd
[2:08:07] like to ask for a mo a motion to
[2:08:09] adjurnn, please. Uh moved by councelor
[2:08:11] France, a second by councelor Wood. All
[2:08:13] those in favor? Thank you. Committee is
[2:08:16] now adjourned. Thank you.