[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.

Special Committee of the Whole - 20 Jul 2026

Transcript