SMWS: in 2000, the RDOS board told the province to fix it first (see letter from Chair)
- Riley Gettens
- Mar 14
- 2 min read
Updated: Mar 29
A 2000 RDOS Board letter is being framed as either a smoking gun or a blueprint. Twenty-six years of history tells a different story.
A letter from the RDOS Board to the province, dated June 2000, continues to make the rounds in the current Sage Mesa Water System discussion. It is being presented as either proof that today's Board is ignoring its obligations, or as a ready-made template for how the Board should respond now. That framing deserves scrutiny: 26 years of history tells a different story.
What the 2000 Board actually did
In June 200, the SMWS had already been under provincial control for nearly a decade and rather take the system over, the Board sent the province a letter outlining 15 concerns that would need to be resolved before any transfer could be contemplated by the RDOS.
It was a Fix it First position, and given the system appeared stable and there was reasonable hope the province would act, it was arguably the right call at the time.
The Board submitted a wish list. The province did nothing. The concerns were deferred, compounded, and handed forward to the Boards that followed.
What the 2000 Board did not have
This is what makes the comparison between 2000 and 2026 very misleading: the 2000 Board did not have today’s McElhanney engineering assessment. Today, the McElhanney assessment exists and the condition of the system is documented.
The Sage Mesa community's frustration is valid. A $630,000 problem met with a wish list in 2000 has had 26 years to become something much larger. The financial stakes are higher, the urgency is greater, and the system is not stable enough to survive another standoff.
Today's RDOS Board is not going to ignore the engineering evidence and repeat the 'Fix it First' strategy that already failed under far better conditions.
In 2000, the RDOS board made this decision on behalf of citizens. 26 years later, SMWS citizens have their say through a referendum. Vote no, and the system stays under provincial management and private ownership. Vote yes, and the system's ownership transfers to the RDOS. Two different paths forward, each with its own operational and financial reality.
Please see the following blog posts:
2026 March 29: update**A note on language following reader comments**
A citizen read this line, "The Board submitted a wish list. The province did nothing. The concerns were deferred, compounded, and handed forward to the Boards that followed," as my acknowledgment of the Province's wilful neglect.
To be clear, it is not. I included the line as a critique of the 2000 Board's strategy, specifically to warn against repeating it. A "Fix it First" standoff already failed once under far better conditions, and is not a viable path forward in 2026.
What the last 26 years shows is a policy environment that allowed for bureaucratic inaction and deferred decisions. Wilful neglect implies intent, a deliberate decision to cause harm, and the two are not the same thing.
Thank you for reading,
Riley
Comments