Deep Dive: Water Security – Planning for a Drier Future

Point Form Summary

  • The current shortage was caused mainly by low snowpack, early snowmelt, limited spring rain and warm conditions that increased water use.
  • Growth did not cause the drought, but as more homes, businesses and farms use water, we have less room to manage difficult years.
  • The current Water Capacity Study should lead to an updated Master Water Plan that looks at the climate ahead and the possibility of several dry years in a row.
  • We should work openly with farmers to review how agricultural water is shared and help them find practical ways to use it more efficiently.
  • Before approving major new development, we should know whether we can get enough water to the new homes or businesses during a serious drought—not just in an average year.
  • We need better public information about how much water we have, how it is being used and how much may be lost through leaks.
  • Treated wastewater, Okanagan Lake, better connections between the water sources we already have and possibly more storage can all help. None is a complete answer on its own.
  • Vernon does not control the regional water system by itself. City Council can still press for good planning, connect development decisions to water supply and represent Vernon’s interests at the regional table.
  • Water security will require us to conserve what we have, make careful investments and prepare for several difficult years in a row.

What caused the shortage?

Greater Vernon is experiencing an unusually serious combination of low supply and high demand. A poor snowpack, early melting and limited spring rain left reservoirs critically low. Warm, dry weather then increased evaporation and the need for irrigation.

Agriculture accounts for more than half of Greater Vernon’s annual water use, and most of it is used during the summer. That does not make farmers responsible for the shortage. It means that a water system supporting a large agricultural community is especially vulnerable when little water flows into its reservoirs.

Growth did not create the drought either. But as more homes, businesses and farms use water, we have less room to manage an extreme year. That makes careful planning increasingly important.

We should resist the temptation to blame one group or look for one simple answer. The shortage was caused by several conditions coming together. The response will also require several different approaches.

Is our water planning keeping pace?

Greater Vernon’s Master Water Plan was adopted in 2017, but much of the information and analysis behind it dates to 2012. Since then, our region has grown, construction costs have risen, and several unusually hot and dry years have changed our understanding of the risks ahead.

RDNO is completing a Water Capacity Study. It is looking at how much water we have, how much we may need as the region grows, how climate change could affect our supply and what may need to be built or improved.

This is important work. The public should know when it will be completed; what it assumes about future growth, weather, and water use; and what will happen after it is finished.

The study should be released publicly and followed by:

  • an updated Master Water Plan;
  • a clear list of what needs to be built or improved;
  • an explanation of what it will cost and how it could be paid for;
  • conversations with residents and farmers; and
  • regular reports over the coming years on what has been completed.

We cannot plan for the future by assuming that the weather patterns of the past will continue.

We need to know whether we will have enough water after warmer winters that have more rain and less snow, earlier melting, hotter summers and several dry years in a row. We should also consider what would happen if drought occurred at the same time as a major wildfire, damage to a water source or faster-than-expected growth.

The most useful question is not how much water we have in an average year. It is how much we can count on when water is most scarce.

Connecting water and growth

Water planning and decisions about where and how we build cannot be treated as separate issues.

Before approving major new development, we should know whether we can provide enough water during a serious drought—not just in an average year. We also need to look beyond how much water we are legally allowed to take. We must ask whether we have the pipes, pumps, reservoirs and treatment facilities needed to get the water where it is needed.

Where and how we grow also matter. Compact housing in neighbourhoods that already have water service generally requires less new pipe, pumping and lawn watering than distant, large-lot development. Building at higher elevations or far from existing services may require new reservoirs, pumps and enough stored water for firefighting.

This does not mean stopping growth. It means directing growth to places we can serve responsibly and requiring new development to pay its fair share of the new pipes, pumps, reservoirs and other work it requires.

Greater Vernon charges developers to help pay for water-system improvements made necessary by growth. The bylaw setting those charges is finally being updated after more than 20 years. That is overdue. It may need to be reviewed again once the Water Capacity Study tells us what improvements will be needed in a warmer and less predictable future.

As a Vernon councillor, I would want clear answers before supporting development that would place significant new demands on our water system:

  • Would it leave existing residents paying costs created by new growth?
  • Will there be enough water for it during a serious drought?
  • What new pipes, pumps, reservoirs or treatment facilities will be needed?
  • Who will pay for them?
  • Would approving this development make it harder to provide water elsewhere?

Agriculture, water use and conservation

Agriculture is important to our economy, food supply and community identity. Farmers are also among the people most directly affected when water becomes scarce.

Greater Vernon measures how much water farms use, sets aside an amount for each agricultural property and charges more when a farm goes beyond that amount. Beginning in 2027, farmers will also pay partly according to how much they use within the amount set aside for them.

What is less clear is whether all the water set aside for agriculture has recently been compared with how much would actually be available during several dry years in a row.

We should work openly with farmers to review how agricultural water is shared. That review should consider:

  • how much water has been set aside for agriculture compared with how much we can count on during a drought;
  • how much of that water is actually being used;
  • whether water is set aside for properties that are no longer being actively farmed;
  • whether crops will need more water as summers become hotter;
  • how decisions will be made if there is not enough water for everyone; and
  • how possible changes would affect the ability of farms to operate successfully.

This work should be done with farmers, not imposed on them. Water availability affects what they can grow, the value of their land and whether their businesses can survive.

We should also help farmers use water more efficiently. That could include reviewing irrigation systems, measuring moisture in the soil, using weather information to decide when to irrigate, replacing inefficient sprinklers, finding leaks and improving soil so that it holds more water.

Financial help should be available to smaller farms as well as larger ones. It should support improvements that can be shown to save water.

Simply raising water rates may encourage some conservation, but it can also hurt farmers who cannot afford the equipment needed to reduce their water use.

If some agricultural activities become difficult to sustain in particular places, change should be gradual, voluntary and supported. Abruptly taking water away could destroy years of investment and threaten the farms we are trying to protect.

Household conservation, water rates and leaks

Residents also need practical and affordable ways to conserve water.

Water rates should keep the amount needed for normal household use affordable while charging more for very high optional use, such as excessive lawn watering. Any new approach would need to recognize larger households, medical needs, several homes or suites using the same meter, and unusually high use caused by a verified leak.

Programs for residents could help with:

  • checking irrigation systems;
  • replacing lawns and plants that need large amounts of water;
  • using irrigation controls that respond to weather and soil conditions;
  • installing more efficient fixtures; and
  • collecting rainwater where it makes sense.

Collecting rainwater can reduce the need to use drinking water on gardens. It can also slow the flow of stormwater during heavy rain. However, most of our precipitation comes when we need little water for irrigation. Without large and often expensive storage tanks, rainwater will be a useful supplement rather than a major new source.

We also need to know how much treated water is being lost before it reaches homes, businesses and farms.

Greater Vernon measures customer use and responds to reported leaks and broken water mains. However, I have not found a published estimate of water loss across the entire system.

Each year, the public should be told:

  • how much water entered the system;
  • how much homes, businesses and farms used;
  • how much was used for firefighting, cleaning pipes and other public needs;
  • how much was probably lost through leaks or inaccurate meters; and
  • whether we are making progress in reducing those losses.

Finding and repairing leaks may be less expensive than developing a new source. We cannot properly judge that opportunity if we do not have the information.

Finding and making better use of other water sources

Conservation is essential, but it is unlikely to be enough on its own. We also need to make better use of other water sources.

Re-using treated wastewater 

Vernon already treats wastewater so that some of it can safely be used again for irrigation. This is known as reclaimed water.

With the right approvals and safeguards, more of this water could be used on certain farms, parks, playing fields and landscaped areas.

That would require more pipes, pumps, storage and monitoring. Reclaimed water will not be suitable for every crop or location. However, every litre that replaces drinking water or water from the Duteau reservoirs leaves that water available for another use.

This idea has been discussed for years. The current shortage gives us good reason to find out what is practical, what it would cost and why it has not happened.

Okanagan Lake

Okanagan Lake is another important part of the picture. Greater Vernon is legally allowed to take some water from the lake, and the Canoe Bay project will improve access to that water for west-side agriculture. It may eventually allow Goose Lake to be supplied with untreated lake water instead of treated Duteau water.

But a large lake is not the same as an unlimited supply.

We can take only the amount allowed under our water licences. We must also leave enough to support fish, wildlife and the health of the watershed. Even where water is available, we still need the pipes, pumps and treatment facilities to get it where it is needed.

Communities, farms and natural systems throughout the Okanagan depend on the same connected watershed. The amount available to everyone ultimately depends on how much water flows back into the system through rain and snow.

Okanagan Lake can help give us more options. It should not become an excuse to avoid conservation or approve growth without understanding the long-term effects.

More water storage

More reservoir storage may help us save water from wetter periods for use during dry ones. But storage is useful only if there is enough meltwater to fill it.

Before committing to an expensive storage project, we should compare it with conservation, repairing leaks, reusing treated wastewater and improving connections between the water sources we already have.

For each option, we should ask:

  • Who should pay?
  • How much additional water would it give us during dry years?
  • What would it cost to build and operate?
  • How reliable would it be?
  • What effect would it have on lakes, streams, fish and wildlife?
  • Who would benefit?

Clear responsibility and better public information

Greater Vernon Water is overseen by RDNO, while Vernon and Coldstream carry out much of the day-to-day work, maintenance and billing. This shared arrangement can make it difficult for the public to understand who is responsible for what.

Past debates about who should own and operate the system became lengthy and contentious. Reopening that entire debate could consume years without adding a single litre of water.

A more useful review would focus on practical questions:

  • Who is responsible for finding and reporting leaks?
  • Are the same standards used throughout the water system?
  • Is information shared quickly and consistently?
  • Are decisions about new development connected to the amount of water available?
  • Who is responsible when promised work is delayed?
  • Who communicates with the public during a shortage?

Vernon Council does not control Greater Vernon Water on its own. However, councillors represent Vernon at the regional table, make decisions about where and how Vernon grows and can insist that water supply be taken seriously before development is approved.

The public also deserves information that is easy to find and understand. A simple online page could regularly show:

  • reservoir and lake levels;
  • snowpack;
  • water use by homes, businesses and farms;
  • progress towards conservation goals; and
  • Estimated water losses through leaks.

Clear information helps people understand why restrictions are necessary, whether our efforts are working and whether promised improvements are happening.

Preparing for the likelihood of another difficult year

We do not know what the coming winter will bring. We do know that we are now in an El Nino cycle that is very likely to be one of the most extreme on record, and in the past powerful El Ninos have led to warmer winters in Western Canada, which in term has usually meant more rain and less snow in the winters and earlier melting. This situation does not guarantee a poor snowpack, but it gives us even more reason to prepare.

Immediate priorities should include:

  • saving as much water as reasonably possible from now until next year;
  • planning for another severe drought;
  • deciding in advance when water restrictions should begin;
  • giving farmers timely information before they make major planting and purchasing decisions;
  • moving work on treated wastewater and other water sources forward; and
  • publishing a clear plan for how another difficult year would be managed.

Preparing for a bad year does not mean predicting that it will happen. It means avoiding preventable harm if it does.

My Perspective

This shortage was driven mainly by severe weather and poor flows into our reservoirs—not by residents, farmers or one bad decision.

But difficult years can expose weaknesses that are easy to overlook when water is plentiful. We need honest answers about how much water we can count on, where it is being used, how much may be lost and whether our plans match the future we are entering.

There will not be one dramatic project that solves the problem. We will need to conserve, reuse water where we can, repair leaks, improve connections, make careful investments and direct growth to places we can serve responsibly.

Water security is not about choosing between residents and agriculture or closing the door on growth. It is about making thoughtful choices now so our community, farms and natural systems can continue to thrive in a drier and less predictable future.

Search