PG has some of the cleanest and most plentiful water supply in the world with 5% of the worlds fresh water run off flowing through our city.

So it only makes sense for these 'water experts' to support the new water meters here in PG so that we can privatize for profits our water distribution system to some foreign multinationals with bribe money for our politicians and their bureaucrats other dream projects. Won't it be great to pay a meter rate to a foreign multinational for access to our plentiful supply of water.

I believe it is near impossible to waste water in PG. We have so much and any excess (on the lawn say) just flows right back into the reservoir. The infrastructure is fixed and the usage variance factors very little into the cost of the system maintenance.

We are being set up to have our water held hostage here in PG... a place that has more water than anywhere else on the planet.

Canada has lots of fresh water, no doubt. So do some other countries such as China, Russia, Brazil.

The big areas being forgotten are Greenland and Alaska.

Here are some tables that show precipitation, surface water, ground water, water per population, etc.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4473E/y4473e0c.htm#bm12

I do agree we have no real water problem, especially when countries like Kuwait have none ..... they got stuck with that black stuff and have to trade it for the clear stuff .... FIJI water in a bottle ... :-)

That 5% statistic is totally bogus. Never trust anyone who fabricates numbers to support their argument...

And there are issues with wasting water in Prince George. Our water comes from reservoirs and is then treated. If we reduce our water demand, we slow the rates contaminants can enter the resevoir, and we reduce the costs of treating our water.

The City has a plan to reduce water consumption by %15 over the next 10 years and it is projected to save $164,000 annually. This plan does not include retrofitting homes with water metres.

Moreover, the more water you waste on things like watering your lawn (and watering the street as is often the case) the more likely we are to flush contaminants from our streets into the river system.

Have a little common sense Gus

I am suspicious of their motives. I believe it is more about funding, getting more taxpayers money. Following the piles of money dumped into the global warming BS makes me cynical about anything universities come up with.

I do not understand how we wast water, it goes back into the system so to speak. Lets see it is now raining, I wonder how much contaminants are being flushed right now?

There have been writings about how much water we supposidly use in PG but have yet to see a break down on who uses what between industry and general population or how that information is gathered.

I already know the out come of these symposiums, it is worse than we thought send more money for more studies. Just like the climate change BS.

The City has a water use reduction plan ???

Where might one see that plan ??

I am pretty sure that if there are any savings realized, they would be quickly

Last report I saw there said the COATM uses about 51 million litres per day - alotting some 500 litres per day per resident. I am no good at math anymore, but that kind of usage seems pretty high - unless you include all the leaking lines that nobody seems to want to address.

After all, that is pumped and "treated" water that is being leaked away. But, the leaked water doesn't end up at Landsdowne, so it is easier on outfall treatment.

No easy answers, but it would be nice to get on the right path at least. Good luck.

:-)

V.

Not an exact percentage, but the Fraser has nearly half of BC's runoff water and BC as a whole has 10% of the global rainfall runoff from our rivers. The Fraser measurement is at Hope though, so ya the percentage isn't exact... but that facts are we have no shortage of water with two major rivers replenishing our aquifer, and if we didn't fluoride treat our water it would cost a lot less to 'treat'.

The only reason PG would meter its water is for nefarious reasons with a hidden agenda for eventual privatization.

The city will need a court order to enter my property if they think they are going to install a meter on my house.

Well said eagleone. Any kid who ever swam in the Nechako probably drank a quart of the water without any ill effects. Don't forget the chlorine being added while we have a hydrogen peroxide plant right here in town.

"BC as a whole has 10% of the global rainfall runoff from our rivers."

What do you mean by "global". It normally means the whole world. In that case the statement is totally out of scale of the fact.

The same with the 5% in your first post.

Other than that, I agree we have no water problem. We have a problem of supplying the water to the users at a reasonable rate.

Water is not a diminishing resource. We may have a water quality problem if we are not careful with how we access the source and maybe more so with how we treat it after we extract it.

Curmudgeons curse .....

As I just posted, we have plenty of water. The problem the City thinks we have is the cost of supplying it is getting too steep. In fact, while you say the plan to reduce does not include water metering residences, it is very largely dependent on it since they feel it is the best or only way to get people to reduce their water use.

However, there are some concerns I have because I heave little common sense and do not know what others commonly know, according to you.

First, here is the plan: http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/city_services/utilities/waterconservation/water_conservation_plan.pdf

Notice the plan is dated over 5 years ago. 1. It is totally out of date
2. it has no updated data compared to the baseline information provided about current use, especially as more meters were installed in industrial/commercial/institutional facilities
3. it assumes 3% increase water usage even if no increase in population
4. it uses 5% leakage factor in the city side of the system
5. it identifies major upgrades which are required in the system anyway due to their age.
6. there is no comparison to other communities to show whether we squander water compared to other communities our size.

Generally, I find it to be a substandard report. It does not make the case for how to best reduce water.

So I do not know if that is my common sense or my no so common sense. But it is my opinion and it is founded on a bit of reading and understanding totally what I read and wanting more to read so that I could form an opinion based on sufficient fact to support an opinion. Sorry, not enough information.

You got any hidden somewhere?

"The City has a plan to reduce water consumption by %15 over the next 10 years and it is projected to save $164,000 annually."

The City has many plans. In fact, lots of organizations and people have many plans. There is some sort of saying about the best laid plans of man that is in the back of my mind .... :-)

Sort of like the plan to save lots of money with automated garbage pickup.

And the plan to reduce garbage going to the land fill.

And the plan to put Council on streaming video over the net.

And the plan to improve the web site ......

And the plan to put a cogen plant into their old works yard next to the Millar Subdivision.....

Lots and lots of plans ..... many get done, others get put off for much longer than they were supposed to and others just simply do not end up as planned ....

In my opinion, the idea of conserving water is good. Also in my opinion, their plan is useless ..... Start over I say and consult the people

BTW, go to their water conservation site:

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/city_services/utilities/waterconservation

A city that has so little knowledge about water use that they have not yet noticed that the following suggestion makes no sense.

"A lawn requires only about one inch (2.5 cm) of water per week. That works to only a half hour of sprinkling twice a week on your sprinkling day."

There is a depth provided, but no area. Water is measured in volume. The volume of water one needs for a lawn depends on the area as well as the depth. An average subdivision home might have about 500 square metres of lawn. About 50 m2 of that is actually on City property at the front of the house.

A ½ inch hose bib delivers about 19 litres/minute @100kPa pressure. By the time you throw a 30 m hose on that with a sprinkler on the end, you would be lucky to get about 15 litres/minute or 900 litres/hour.

So you need (500 x 10,000 x 2.5)/1,000 = 12,500 litres of water per week for your lawn using the City suggested standard. At the 900 litres per hour that means just under 14 hours per week of watering the lawn. At 3.5 days per week of permitted access to water, that means about 4 hours of watering per each of those days. Reduce the time if you have two hose bibs.

In any event, at an average of 2.8 people per household that is about 635 litres of water per day per person just for the lawn.

I have watered my lawn about 4 or 5 times this year. I do not see that much watering going on in my neighbourhood. I do not have a lawn fetish. If I get a meter, it would be almost impossible for me to save on using water for watering the lawn.

Wanna seriously reduce water? Teach the community how to get rid of manicured lawns and put in low water plants or mulch, rocks, etc.

Finally, wanna get even more serious? Build condos, apartments, row houses .... densify the city. It save on actual water use and saves on the size of the infrastructure required to distribute it ..... In fact, it save on a hell of a lot more than just water .....

Now, back to my common self sense, because that was my not so COMMON self writing .... :-)

Oh, before someone else mentions it, during those times of the spring/summer/fall when there is sufficient rain, of course there is no watering required or considerably less. I believe overall, based on the average rainfall, about a half to a third of the water would be supplied by rainfall over the lawn growing season.