Leasehold land

[omisimaw]

13 February 2008
Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands
PO Box 9043 STN Prov Govt
Victoria, BC, V8W 9E2
Telephone : 250.387 .1 023
Re: Okanagan Reseruoir Lakes Lease Lots
Dear Honourable Pat Bell,
Our constituents, the local governments of the Okanagan, have voiced strong opposition to the
sale and anticipated development of lots on Okanagan upper-watershed drinking water sources.
This imporlant file has generated significant comment by Local Government and Water
Purveyors (attached). The Okanagan Basin Water Board requests an update from the Minister
regarding ILMB's progress on this impoftant file.
The Okanagan Basin Water Board, the Water Supply Association of BC, many individual water
utilities, the North Okanagan Medical Health Officer, and the Regional Boards in the Valley,
along with a number of municipalities have registered their opposition to the proposed sale of
leased lots on Okanagan reservoir lakes. So far the ILMB has ignored these objections.
Concerns relate to the quantity and quality of water in the drinking reservoirs. Fee simple
transfer of land adjacent to drinking water supplies will inevitably lead to increased development
density and create significant reservoir management issues - interJering with our ability to adapt
to climate change and the increasing water demands of our population.
The Okanagan Basin is one of the most arid regions in the province. With our booming
economy, large agricultural sector and expanding population, community leaders now recognize
that protecting the quality and availability of water is key for continued growth and prosperity of
the valley. Selling leased reservoir lots will benefit a small number of individual lease holders,
but these benefits come at the expense of the health of the citizens, economy, and environment
of the Okanagan.
Once these reservoir lots enter private ownership, they will be extremely difficult to reclaim,
sharply curtailing the flexibility we need to protect water supply for downstream communities.
Rather than selling lots to current lease holders, the Okanagan Basin Water Board urges the
Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to not renew these leases past their current tenure. The small
size of upland water reservoirs (compared to mainstem lakes) reduces their ability to dilute
pollution, making them sensitive to leaking septics and recreational overuse. As snow-water
storage declines as a result of climate change, upland lakes are a strategic resource for
maintaining (and possibly increasing) our potable water supply to meet the needs of a rapidly
growing population and economy in the Okanagan. Developing a strategy, based on best
available science, to protect our limited upper-watershed reservoirs is an important policy
decision with significant implications on the quality of life of Okanagan citizens. Public
ownership is essentialfor preseruing the quality and supply of water in the Okanagan, now and
in the future.

Donald G maybe start with a bit of research or communicating with others before slagging DLC and Mayor Baker:
http://www.obwb.ca/

[kgcayenne]

A few questions:

How large/deep was this lake originally?
When was the dam built?
When were the lots leased?
Who built the dam?
Who paid for the dam?
Who maintains the dam?
Who pays for the maintenance of the dam?
How much water would there be in the lake today were it not for the dam?

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

Please rest assured that, previous to your advice, I had definitely begun to research the stated reasons and real reasons for the position outlined in your letter to Pat Bell. Unfortunately, what I have learned to date, identifies that much of the information in your letter is, in my "researched" opinion, both incomplete and inaccurate and/or selective to the point of giving a false image of the real situation that exists. Three facts are given in support of that contention. Many more were identified.

1) Regardless of who leases or owns any land bordering the lakes, THE PROVINCE will always own the water in the lakes and the land up to and including the normal high water mark of each lake.

2) The quality of the water will be determined more by the fish who are born, live, breed and die in the lake and the large assortment of birds and animals that do likewise, than it will by the small number of renters who live in their old (some 50 years old) cabins could ever do.

3) The Province, who owns the land being leased has had, and continues to have, complete authority to make whatever rules it wishes in relation to the quantity and quality of water used by any lease holder. Also, through damming to control the the height of the lake and amount of water retained in each and all of the lakes.

That I believe that the whole situation is more to do with trying to open land up for commercial development at lakes near Lake Country and envy regarding people who arrived in the area early enough to claim one of the lots than it is about concern for water, as outlined in the letter to Mr Bell. It is also why I personally consider the never ending legal appeals financially and politically opportunistic. With respect.

[kgcayenne]

Donald:

A few questions:

How large/deep was this lake originally?
When was the dam built?
When were the lots leased?
Who built the dam?
Who paid for the dam?
Who maintains the dam?
Who pays for the maintenance of the dam?
How much water would there be in the lake today were it not for the dam?

[Donald G]

To kgcayenne ...

The purpose of your questions is what?

The important point is that the dams were erected and the water level raised WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PROVINCE, who owns and controls all water running into or out of the chain of small lakes. Water licenses identify the amount of water EVERY user is permitted to take from the entire water system (water shed) at any point.

Whether or not a person or community builds and\or maintains a dam anywhere along the system (only with governmental permission) has nothing whatever to do with the ownership of the water or right to take water from the system.

With respect.

[kgcayenne]

Are you a politician or something? Go back and answer the damn questions.


Or....

Are you afraid those answers might prevent you from obtaining support for your views?

[Gone_Fishin]

Donald G give it a rest.... this is not Mayor Bakers personal vendetta anymore than it was McCoubrey or Hein's personal vendettas.

[url]http://www.obwb.ca/99/?tx_ttnews[pointer]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=89&tx_ttnews[backPid]=97&cHash=5a56942772[/url]

It have been going on for years and it has to do with water ...

The district is growing and those lakes are more to the east than south and on provincial lands. Until the change in the provincial government land use rules it used to be difficult to obtain a lease let alone built a humungous home for permanent residence. Today it is not. And with that come the problems that contaminate water sources. Sewage, waste water, motorized equipment on the water just to name a few.

Just as they save other areas for the use of all these small recreational lakes should have the same protection.

The district is scrambling for any and all grants as are all small tax base municipalities to keep up with aging infrastructure and when you are in a rather new municipality that can be substantial when taking over private purveyor licenses or old irrigation districts.

Why should any municipality have to pay for expensive extra treatment just because the province allows excessive use or the possibility of a failed septic to contaminate a towns water?

Good on DLC if they are still fighting it... hope they are also still fighting to have non motorized only craft on the lakes cause this type of development is just plain wrong and unwanted by more than a hand full of old cabin owners.....

It also interests me when people keep repeating that they have seen a box full of papers and have gleaned or perused them and from that draw a conclusion that it is the Mayor's personal agenda. Mayor's take their mandates from the taxpayer and they have mega 'help' from staff, associations, organizations, lobby groups, and other council members to name but a few.

And there is no comparison to leases on FN land so maybe this crossing between threads to West Kelowna is not such a good thing. Not quite sure what your point is but alas you can rest assured that the District has been at this for well beyond the term of Mayor Baker and will continue as they should to protect the ranch lands and recreational lands around them. It is not a negative but a positive in anyone's eyes.

That's all incorrect. But you're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you had some knowledge of the situation at hand before you typed it all out.

[Donald G]

To kgcayenne and FisherDude ...

It is abundantly clear that both of you adamantly support and are in favor of what the Mayor 'et al' is/are doing, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary; which you either do not know or choose, for your own reasons, not to know. I have to believe that you have a personal interest in the process and the outcome. I do not aside from the fact that I see unfairness, financial irresponsibility and political opportunism as a factor in the equation.

As you are both no doubt aware the hearing at which all of the facts relative to the issue will again be given (rather than a politically favorable selection of the facts) is upcoming in the very near future. I would encourage you both to attend for the purpose of familiarizing yourselves with the facts that have caused me to conclude that your Mayor is not acting in the best interests of the free enterprise system, nor the people of Lake Country ... facts that it would be in everyone's best interests to be aware of before deciding the matter.

While I would love to take you up on your offer to debate the issue with you in the media, it would be extremely time consuming and counter productive to the process chosen. We each believe what we believe. With respect.

[kgcayenne]

Simple questions, still left unanswered.

I don't live in Lake Country; I never have.

[Gone_Fishin]

To kgcayenne and FisherDude ...

It is abundantly clear that both of you adamantly support and are in favor of what the Mayor 'et al' is/are doing, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary; which you either do not know or choose, for your own reasons, not to know. I have to believe that you have a personal interest in the process and the outcome. I do not aside from the fact that I see unfairness, financial irresponsibility and political opportunism as a factor in the equation.

As you are both no doubt aware the hearing at which all of the facts relative to the issue will again be given (rather than a politically favorable selection of the facts) is upcoming in the very near future. I would encourage you both to attend for the purpose of familiarizing yourselves with the facts that have caused me to conclude that your Mayor is not acting in the best interests of the free enterprise system, nor the people of Lake Country ... facts that it would be in everyone's best interests to be aware of before deciding the matter.

While I would love to take you up on your offer to debate the issue with you in the media, it would be extremely time consuming and counter productive to the process chosen. We each believe what we believe. With respect.

Me? No, I do NOT support Baker et al's actions whatsoever. That's why I disagreed with what was written by crazyolme, as she obviously is a Baker fan. Baker's been on this for years, attacking the very people that care for and watch over the watersheds. He won't take on the powerful cattlemen, but he will attack the small, quiet group of cabin owners who are stewards of the watersheds and who have co-existed with reservoirs for decades. Political agenda all the way on Baker's part, IMO! And very misguided on his part, too.

[Ken7]

That's all incorrect. But you're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you had some knowledge of the situation at hand before you typed it all out.

I just love a debate when someone says just what you did, "That's all incorrect". Well if infact his facts are not, why not school him with your pool of knowledge?

Go through his points and correct it, I'd like to see it also educate us all please!

A debate like yours is like two children in the playpark one says he dad is big and strong.
The other says, No my dad is stronger!

[Ken7]

That's all incorrect. But you're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you had some knowledge of the situation at hand before you typed it all out.

I just love a debate when someone says just what you did, "That's all incorrect". Well if infact his facts are not, why not school him with your pool of knowledge?

Go through his points and correct it, I'd like to see it also educate us all please!

A debate like yours is like two children in the playpark one says he dad is big and strong.
The other says, No my dad is stronger!

[Rwede]

^^^ More ridiculous is your posting the same thing twice for emphasis, Ken.

[Donald G]

To Rwede ...

Given your identifying 'picture' I have to wonder if you are still posting on behalf of the NDP, or as a private individual? It also causes me to wonder if the most recent two hearing remands at the request of the Mayor were for the purpose of delaying matters until after the "NDP Landslide" proposed election in the hope that an NDP government would be more sympathetic to the distorted (my opinion) view being presented by the Mayor 'et al' ... since the present Liberal Government had already used the complete engineer provided facts to rule in favor of the homeowners?

[Rwede]

To Rwede ...

Given your identifying 'picture' I have to wonder if you are still posting on behalf of the NDP, or as a private individual? It also causes me to wonder if the most recent two hearing remands at the request of the Mayor were for the purpose of delaying matters until after the "NDP Landslide" proposed election in the hope that an NDP government would be more sympathetic to the distorted (my opinion) view being presented by the Mayor 'et al' ... since the present Liberal Government had already used the complete engineer provided facts to rule in favor of the homeowners?

Hey Don, I've NEVER posted on behalf of the NDP. Watch closely and learn that the avatar is representing AD as being the same idiot that MH was. You ought to take a look at my posting history.

I think Baker is totally out to lunch by his actions. Leave the folks alone who look after the lakes as Fisher stated.

The enviro report stated that although they looked and looked, they could find no deleterious effect from the cabins on the quality of the lake water. That should be enough proof for people right there that Baker is just creating a non-existant issue as politicians love to do!