Banks Crescent Boondoggle

[RandyDandy]

Aye, "there's the rub".

[twobits]

The supply has yet to be disrupted in a century of upstream development and small earthquakes. This development proposes to drop a few thousand tons of concrete and steel on top of that supply at what is likely it’s most vulnerable point. Now it’s entirely possible that there will be no ill effects at all and the water will continue to flow strong and clean for the next hundred years... but what if it doesn’t?

Most vulnerable point? Please provide the resource for that conclusion. It seems to me that a professional and independent third party study has determined the risk to be minimal and can be reduced to beyond minimal with some pretty basic precautions. This whole argument has become a game of demands for absolute certainties. If we had to apply those same guarantee's to every building or road built, we would have no new building anywhere nor roads.
Further to the discussion, the Lark Group is on notice of concerns for the water supply. So are the professional engineers who signed off on the report. If a 6/49 chance of failure of the spring source should occur, there would be plentiful funds available in the liquidation of Lark Group and the Engineer's that signed off on it to remedy the issue thru errors and omissions insurance. And engineers do not sign off on a project without confidence. Using that insurance to cover their butts would destroy their careers, credibility and business. They did not sign off on this report with disregard to potential consequences especially so when this project is such a flashpoint in the community. The mere fact that a respected Geotech Engineering firm gave the OK with some very minor mitigating procedures should speak volumes of their confidence in the report.
IMO, this whole argument is nimbies latching onto the Fish Hatchery as their best bet to shut down something they don't like and the Fish Hatchery itself being exposed and caught with their pants down for their own vulnerability with only one source of unknown spring water for their operation. Have they not already been extremely lucky that all of the historic septic fields and all of the construction on top of this unknown aquifer above them has not already to date compromised their water quality? Now, somehow, because of it's proximity, the sky is going to fall. Seems to me to be not much more than an effort by the Freshwater Fisheries Society to get someone else to pay for a contingent water supply that they should have planned and budgeted for decades ago.

[fluffy]

I don't put stock in NIMBY complaints any more than you do twobits, but if the Hatchery and FFSBC have concerns I'm willing to take it on faith that they have some basis for their position. It seems to me that all they're asking for is some sort of guarantee that a suitable water supply continues to be availble. Why isn't the Lark Group willing to commit to that?

The "recharge area" for Shaughnessy Springs covers an area from the mouth of Garnet Valley, across the "downtown" area and out into Prairie Valley, narrowing in a sort of funnel shape to its outflow in the Banks Crescent bowl. It makes sense that this would be its most sensitive area. Google it ya lazy bugger. :)

[totoramona]

For anyone interested in hearing directly from the Freshwater Fisheries Hatchery manager about their concerns, along with comments from Council and development services, watch the discussion at the last Council meeting. There is a lot of information on the points from each side.

https://vimeo.com/252409950

Starts around 1hr 3 min.

[OllyV]

For anyone interested in hearing directly from the Freshwater Fisheries Hatchery manager about their concerns, along with comments from Council and development services, watch the discussion at the last Council meeting. There is a lot of information on the points from each side.

https://vimeo.com/252409950

Starts around 1hr 3 min.

Thank you totoramona.

I think it is very easy now for us to see which player is the biggest obstacle in resolving this otherwise easily resolvable issue.

[Drip_Torch]

I agree, thank you totoramona.

I watched the presentation and was left with one question. How is it fish ended up with more articulate and responsible representation than the people of Summerland? What's the issue? There's a question around water supply and no contingencies in place to deal with the question.

Word games won't solve that.

[totoramona]

There's a question around water supply and no contingencies in place to deal with the question.
Word games won't solve that.

I agree. A "sophisticated monitoring program" does not equal a " contingency plan for uninterrupted fresh water".

Councillor Boot clarified that if turbidity rises to a level dangerous to the fish, their plan proposes to stop work until turbidity levels drop. If they start work again and turbidity rises, they would need to stop work again. And then what? What is the contingency if every time they do work, turbidity rises? That would not be "uninterrupted fresh water" and I am sure Lark would not want to stop work indefinitely. That plan isn't good enough.

[twobits]

I don't put stock in NIMBY complaints any more than you do twobits, but if the Hatchery and FFSBC have concerns I'm willing to take it on faith that they have some basis for their position. It seems to me that all they're asking for is some sort of guarantee that a suitable water supply continues to be availble. Why isn't the Lark Group willing to commit to that?

The "recharge area" for Shaughnessy Springs covers an area from the mouth of Garnet Valley, across the "downtown" area and out into Prairie Valley, narrowing in a sort of funnel shape to its outflow in the Banks Crescent bowl. It makes sense that this would be its most sensitive area. Google it ya lazy bugger. :)

Then why has the Hatchery not sought alternative water supplies if water supply is so critical to them? Did they think the area development around them would be static forever? It seems an awful lot like eggs all in one basket to me??
Query me this. If the Hatchery would be looking for a location right now, today, would they spend the capital to build the Hatchery based only on a spring source with unknown longevity or would an alternate backup source be considered?
I am of the belief that the Hatchery knows that this development will not disrupt the spring flow and is instead using this development to leverage a second water source paid for by others that they should have had decades ago. C'mon, seriously. You cannot on one hand state your operation provides 100 million in economic activity to the Province and leave that 100 million dollar business argument to a single natural spring flow that could change with a simple bank slope slough which are documented and likely to continue regardless of this development. The Hatchery is just recognizing the Achilles Heel to their operation.

[Darkre]

I agree, thank you totoramona.

I watched the presentation and was left with one question. How is it fish ended up with more articulate and responsible representation than the people of Summerland? What's the issue? There's a question around water supply and no contingencies in place to deal with the question.

Word games won't solve that.

It's funny how 2 people can watch the same thing and come out with a totally different opinion. (Over 40 min. video for those interested btw)

The complaints and issues raised by the FFSBC were completely self inflicted. They were in direct communication with the developer and the FFSBC chose to break off talks because they were offended by the language used (apparently the threat of having to pay for a portion of a secondary water source and a potential lawsuit was too much). Give me a break. If the fish were so important to them they should never have broken off direct talks no matter the personality conflicts. The town can approve this project with or without the hatchery being on board. You should never close down any avenue of communication if you truly feel your business is threatened.

The FFSBC asked the town to be the go between and communication began via correspondence. Now the FFSBC is claiming that this wasn't adequate consultation... It's what they asked for when they stepped away from direct communication. He couldn't understand why council hadn't take the time to visit the hatchery for a tour without offering an invitation??? Or how it took until 22 months for the FFSBC to appear before council to raise their concerns and answer questions directly? I'm sorry but this is a two way street and, if at any time the FFSBC felt they weren't being heard, they should have asked to speak in person to council or with the developer. You can't expect people to know what you would like them to do if you don't tell them and you shouldn't expect them to hold your hand through the process.

It was also interesting how the hatchery manager kept complaining about the lack of contingencies in place when the FFSBC haven't proposed any of their own. Where you see articulate and responsible, I see someone that didn't like what they were hearing so they took their ball and went home in a huff.

It was also interesting how the FFSBC has since at least 2004 identified a personal need for a secondary water source yet have done nothing to date. The authors of the study of the aquifier in 2004? Golder, the same company that Lark used for their risk assessment. Yet somehow a report that indicated minimal risk to the aquifer from the company they trusted 14 years ago isn't adequate today. It almost seems like the FFSBC is trying to get someone else to pay for something they themselves have identified as an important requirement for the ongoing success of the hatchery?

[Darkre]

There's a question around water supply and no contingencies in place to deal with the question.
Word games won't solve that.

I agree. A "sophisticated monitoring program" does not equal a " contingency plan for uninterrupted fresh water".

Councillor Boot clarified that if turbidity rises to a level dangerous to the fish, their plan proposes to stop work until turbidity levels drop. If they start work again and turbidity rises, they would need to stop work again. And then what? What is the contingency if every time they do work, turbidity rises? That would not be "uninterrupted fresh water" and I am sure Lark would not want to stop work indefinitely. That plan isn't good enough.

Then why hasn't the FFSBC put forth a proposal that would be adequate? Apparently they have known since 2004 that they should have a secondary water source but have done nothing about it. They must know by now what their preferred secondary water system would be so why haven't they priced that system out and presented it to council and the developer?

The solution is that simple

[totoramona]

I am of the belief that the Hatchery knows that this development will not disrupt the spring flow and is instead using this development to leverage a second water source paid for by others that they should have had decades ago. C'mon, seriously. You cannot on one hand state your operation provides 100 million in economic activity to the Province and leave that 100 million dollar business argument to a single natural spring flow that could change with a simple bank slope slough which are documented and likely to continue regardless of this development. The Hatchery is just recognizing the Achilles Heel to their operation.

The manager explained this. There are turbidity events that they currently deal with. A simple bank slough would be one of these. What they can not handle is sustained, daily turbidity events. The Lark plan to deal with this is to "stop work". Well what if turbity occurs when work occurs? What is the contingency for this?
As far as having a secondary water source, Summerland municipality has no secondary source. An earthquake event in Trout Creek would see the whole town in trouble and our water reservoir threatened by contaminants. So go figure.

[fluffy]

Then why has the Hatchery not sought alternative water supplies if water supply is so critical to them?

They don't have to. They have a dependable, clean supply already, a supply that has been in place for a century. All they are asking is that the Lark Group come out and commit to ensuring a continuing supply if the development they are proposing changes the current supply. The onus is one the Lark Group, they are the ones who are changing the conditions there. The big question is why they are dancing around making that commitment? It looks like they might not have as much faith in the engineering reports that they expect everyone else to show.

[twobits]

The manager explained this. There are turbidity events that they currently deal with. A simple bank slough would be one of these. What they can not handle is sustained, daily turbidity events. The Lark plan to deal with this is to "stop work". Well what if turbity occurs when work occurs? What is the contingency for this?
As far as having a secondary water source, Summerland municipality has no secondary source. An earthquake event in Trout Creek would see the whole town in trouble and our water reservoir threatened by contaminants. So go figure.

You are grasping at straws here. It is quite clear here from posted information that plain and simple, the Hatchery itself is the ones that have been caught with their shorts down and are now looking for a saviour for something they should have already planned for.

[totoramona]

You are grasping at straws here. It is quite clear here from posted information that plain and simple, the Hatchery itself is the ones that have been caught with their shorts down and are now looking for a saviour for something they should have already planned for.

Oh right. Because a century of uninterrupted clean water should have given them enough cause for concern to incur the costs of a secondary source. But of course, they should have been thinking of a way to save future developers money. Right. Because that's their responsibility.

[Drip_Torch]

It's funny how 2 people can watch the same thing and come out with a totally different opinion

I think it's quite common. This is precisely why OCP and zoning amendments go to public hearing prior to Council deliberations. All statues in BC have to be read as remedial in purpose, or in other words, public hearings serve precisely that purpose. It allows those different perspectives to be aired, competing interests to be reconciled.

OCP’s and zoning bylaws are developed with both the current and future use in mind. Some people see the public hearing as a checkbox that needs to be passed, but I see it a little differently and believe it’s an opportunity to proscriptively deal with issues before they develop.

So Lark has an interest in developing a piece of land, and to do so, they need to achieve both rezoning and have the OCP amended. (Right? … and I’m asking, because I haven’t really been following all the ins and outs.) FFSBC has an interest in not seeing their operations disrupted as a result of this development. There’s another example of two bodies having different interests and different opinions regarding this situation.

I guess the question that arises, from your post in my mind, is how far should one have to go to protect their own interests, when seemingly those interests are already protected by way of bylaws? It would seem to me that the onus is transferred over onto the body wishing to see those changes happen. Put another way, how many smart dollars would you expect to see invested in a community that isn’t committed to protecting those investments? Stick your money here and be prepared to defend your position every time someone else comes along with a different plan?

Lawsuit - really? Speak to the hand that isn’t busy preparing a counter-claim. That’s how I look at that situation.

Where you “see someone that didn't like what they were hearing so they took their ball and went home in a huff.” I see someone that has no stake in this proposal going forward and in fact, has everything to lose. You say, “can't expect people to know what you would like them to do if you don't tell them...” “Uninterrupted fresh water” seems to have resonated through to me and I live in Penticton – how could it possibly be, that the developer and District have only heard “monitored” and “liability”?

People can look at the same situation and see different things, have different interests and opinions. That’s the strength in our system and it’s only weakened when people don’t resolve to sit down and settle the issues and instead start playing word games, shifting burdens, moving goalposts and translating words to have different meanings.

If the district and the developer want this project to happen – start working with FFSBC in good faith to resolve their concerns. That’s my opinion.