Despite differing opinions around the table, the city council voted to hold onto the lake harvester for now.
After a committee of the whole (COW) meeting discussion on April 29 saw council split once again, council revisited their debate over the fate of the city's lake harvester during the Tuesday, May 6 regular council meeting.
The machine, which cuts aquatic vegetation and removes it from the lake, has cost the city $123,133 since it was purchased in 2020 and has been used for a total of five hours. During this time it removed approximately 50 kg of vegetation from the lake.
The permits issued by the province only allowed the machine to be used within a specific time window in the fall, in a minimum of two metres of water and within specific limited locations on the lake in order to reduce the impacts to vulnerable species.
The lake is home to the Cariboo population of western painted turtle, of which only an estimated 200 remain.
The motion brought forward from the COW meeting was to defer a decision until further clarity is provided on what options the city has to move forward with vegetation removal. Staff were directed to prepare a report with other options recommended by the Ministry of Water, Land and Resources Stewardship.
However, since the COW meeting staff said when they reached out the the ministry, they were told they would have to provide another report from a qualified environmental professional to apply for a permit and the province would not be recommending alternatives. The need for another professional report would cost the city more money.
"Finally we agree, no action should be taken until we know all the options," said Mayor Surinderpal Rathor.
Coun. Michael Moses said he would abide by council's vote, but said he didn't understand council's strong stance on the topic.
Both Moses and Coun. Joan Flaspohler expressed their desire for the funds currently invested in the machine to be redirected to somewhere the city could make use of them.
Flaspohler said she'd like to see the funds be put into improving the boat launch area and swimming area in other ways.
Both Flaspohler and Coun. Angie Delainey emphasized their desire not to spend more money on the harvester.
"I am absolutely opposed to staff spending one more hour on this," said Delainey.
"I personally don't believe a weed harvesting program belongs in our lake from all the research that I've done and reading these reports," said Flaspohler.
She said the aquatic plants help to improve water quality and noted the presence of vulnerable species in the lake, including the blue-listed painted turtles, meant she doesn't see the province approving extensive use of the machine.
Staff made it clear they would not be moving ahead with anything regarding the lake harvester unless the city approved funds to hire a qualified environmental professional.
"We're not going to look at other options for all this sort of stuff," said Chief Administrative Officer Gary Muraca, who also disagreed with reasons the province had given regarding not approving the permits the city had applied to expand their program. He said in the Okanagan lakes where lake harvester programs are used are there is a prioritization of recreation over habitat.
"We can't push this ball forward without professionals," he said.
"If we're taking a hard line stance that we're not spending any more money, then as far as I'm concerned, staff are putting down their pencils," he said.
Coun. Scott Nelson, who lives on the north shore of the lake, echoed a comment by Muraca about how the city used to just cut the vegetation and leave it, many years ago. Using the current harvester would remove the vegetation from the lake, which Nelson sees as a better option.
He said in order to accommodate council's objections to spending further staff time or funds he would amend the recommendation to specify politicians do the work to move things forward.
"I think if we can give this a bit of a chance to work through on the political level, we might hit some successes," said Nelson.
Rathor chided his council for rehashing the discussion at the council table after having already discussed it at COW.
Coun. Sheila Boehm continued to support keeping the harvester and brought forward some other potential solutions, referring to "pellets" suggested by a client. She said the city should look for other options before selling the harvester.
"This is not a lot of money," she said of the value of the used harvester.
Rathor expressed confidence in the ability of council to find a political solution.
"We waited so long why can't we wait another bit of time," he said.
After a half an hour of debate, city council voted in favour of keeping the harvester in order for council to lobby senior levels of government for the city to use the harvester. Moses and Flaspohler voted against keeping the harvester.
