Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Generators: A Detailed Community Report
"The Regional District has continued to block us from securing the emergency generators our water system urgently needs. In just the last five years, three major wildfires have threatened our community, proving how vital uninterrupted water pressure is for protecting structures. We can't afford another failure like in 2021 when backup generators sat unused while the water system failed and eighty-five homes were lost. To date we still have no switches installed on our pump and lift stations to connect any emergency generators that may be brought in during wildfire events or other lengthy power outages. This board's refusal to prioritize this direct threat to our safety is an abdication of their duty; we need leadership that ensures we have the water we need to fight fires when the grid goes down. The following is a Summary of the Urban Systems Report that the Board has used to block the purchase of these generators. The main point being Wildfire was NOT considered as the prime risk to the community, something we who live here know very well. The biggest issue I have is that I know my community in both Westshore and Killiney Beach not only overwhelmingly support the emergency generators, they're angry they are not in place. To add insult to injury the ONLY residents that would pay for the generators are those that live in those two communities. NO ONE outside of those areas (that means you Kelowna) would pay a dime for the generators their switches, fuel, maintenance, etc. "
Wayne Carson
Executive summary
Reliable water service is essential during an emergency. For Killiney Beach and Westshore Estates, wildfire should be treated as the primary design threat because it can combine prolonged power loss, evacuation orders, road closures, smoke, communications disruption and limited access to staff and fuel.
The Urban Systems review provides a useful comparison of backup-power options for the community water systems. It considers permanent generators, trailer-mounted generators, rental generators and additional water storage. However, wildfire and evacuation-driven outages were not modeled as a separate scenario. That gap matters: a solution that works for three routine 24-hour outages may not work during a prolonged regional emergency.
Principal conclusion: the community should adopt a layered, wildfire-focused resilience plan, beginning with permanent backup at the most critical and vulnerable facilities, supported by mobile capacity, sufficient fuel and water storage, tested procedures and clear responsibility for operation.
1. Purpose and scope
This report reorganizes the available information into a decision-focused review. It explains what the Urban Systems assessment examined, identifies its wildfire-related limitations, compares the options, and sets out the additional questions that should be answered before a final investment decision.
2. Why Wildfire must lead the analysis
Wildfire is not simply another cause of an electrical outage. It can affect the entire operating environment at once. A fire may damage power infrastructure, trigger evacuation orders, close roads, restrict movement, overload emergency services, interrupt communications and make it unsafe for operators to reach a facility. Smoke, extreme heat and fire exposure may also affect equipment performance and fuel handling.
Water systems may be needed most during the same period when access is least reliable. Maintaining pumping, treatment, pressure, monitoring and communications therefore requires more than purchasing a generator. It requires a system that can operate safely and independently for the expected duration of the emergency.
3. What the Urban Systems review examined
The assessment considered backup power for water facilities using an assumption of three 24-hour outages per year. It compared options using factors such as continuity of service, reliability, deployment speed, site readiness, facility vulnerability and long-term cost.
The options reviewed were:
Permanent generators installed at selected facilities.
Trailer-mounted generators moved between facilities as needed.
Rental generators obtained during an outage.
Additional water storage used to extend service during interruptions.
4. The central limitation: Wildfire was not a separate scenario
The review indicates that outages caused by wildfire or evacuation were not explicitly modeled or analyzed as a separate scenario. This means the report should not be read as proving that any option is adequate during a wildfire. It provides a starting comparison, but the assumptions need to be stress-tested against realistic wildfire conditions.
The follow-up analysis should examine outages lasting several days or longer; restricted road access; inability to refuel or deliver equipment; reduced staffing; simultaneous failures at multiple facilities; loss of communications; smoke and heat; fire exposure; and the need to maintain water service while residents are evacuating or returning.
5. Option comparison
Permanent generators — Option 2A
Permanent generators provide the strongest readiness when correctly sized, installed, protected and maintained. They can start quickly, avoid emergency transport and reduce dependence on last-minute equipment availability. The review estimated approximately $720,000 over time for permanent generator systems. There are approximately 600 homes in Westshore and Killiney which means each home would pay approximately $1200 based upon the $720,000 noted in the Study.
Their weaknesses are upfront capital cost, fuel storage, maintenance, site vulnerability and the need for reliable automatic transfer equipment. Permanent installations should be located and protected with wildfire conditions in mind, including safe fuel access, fire-resistant surroundings and the ability to operate without immediate staff attendance.
Trailer-mounted generators — Option 2B
Trailer units can be shared among facilities and may provide flexibility at lower initial cost. However, they depend on accessible roads, trained staff, suitable connection points, towing vehicles, deployment time and safe conditions for installation. Those assumptions may fail during an evacuation or active wildfire. A trailer strategy must therefore include pre-planned routes, staging areas, connection standards, fuel arrangements and backup operators.
Rental generators
Rental equipment may reduce capital requirements, but availability cannot be guaranteed during a regional emergency. Delivery may be delayed by road closures or competing demand and with or without switches they would still need to be connected by an industrial electrician who's access may be restricted as in 2021. Rental generators are best treated as supplementary capacity, not the sole basis for water-system resilience.
Additional water storage
Storage can extend service during short interruptions and reduce immediate dependence on generators. It does not replace power required for pumping, treatment, monitoring or communications. The review estimated approximately $2.5 million for storage expansion, making this a significant capital option. Storage is most effective as one layer of a broader plan.
6. Questions that should be answered before approval
Which facilities are essential for life safety and which are most exposed to wildfire?
How many hours or days of autonomous operation are required?
Can staff safely reach and operate each facility during an evacuation?
Where will fuel be stored, how long will it last, and how will it be delivered?
Can equipment be protected from radiant heat, smoke, falling debris and fire?
What happens if several facilities lose power simultaneously?
Are transfer switches, connection points, access roads and foundations ready?
Who has authority to start, refuel, monitor and shut down each system?
How will communications work if cellular or internet service fails?
How will the system be tested under realistic emergency conditions?
7. Recommended Wildfire-resilience framework
First, identify critical facilities. Rank facilities by their contribution to drinking water, pumping, treatment, pressure and emergency service.
Second, establish the design event. Do not plan only for three 24-hour outages. Define a credible wildfire scenario, including duration, access restrictions, staffing and fuel constraints.
Third, use layered protection. Combine permanent generators at priority sites with mobile or rental capacity, additional storage, redundant communications and documented emergency procedures.
Fourth, protect the infrastructure. Review setbacks, vegetation management, enclosures, fuel storage, drainage, ventilation, fire exposure and safe access.
Fifth, test the plan. Conduct regular load tests, fuel checks, transfer-switch tests and tabletop or field exercises involving operators, emergency managers and local authorities.
8. Suggested implementation priorities
Priority 1 — Immediate: map critical assets, confirm vulnerabilities, document existing generator connections, verify fuel arrangements and identify gaps in emergency staffing and communications.
Priority 2 — Near term: select permanent backup for the highest-priority facilities, establish a mobile-generator deployment plan and determine the minimum storage reserve required for wildfire conditions.
Priority 3 — Long term: complete capital upgrades, harden exposed facilities, establish maintenance contracts, train backup operators and conduct annual wildfire-response exercises.
9. Financial decision-making
Cost should be evaluated over the full life of the system, not only by purchase price. The comparison should include installation, fuel storage, maintenance, testing, replacement, staffing, transportation, emergency rentals, water loss and the cost of service failure.
The approximately $720,000 estimate for permanent generators and approximately $2.5 million estimate for storage expansion provide useful reference points, but they should be updated using current quotations and a wildfire-specific life cycle analysis. The least expensive option on paper may carry the greatest operational risk during a regional emergency.
10. Final conclusion
The Urban Systems review is a valuable foundation, but wildfire must become the organizing principle for the final decision. The community’s biggest risk is not simply a short electrical interruption; it is a prolonged, complicated emergency in which power, roads, communications, staffing and fuel may all be constrained.
A resilient plan should prioritize permanent backup at critical facilities, preserve flexibility through mobile capacity, maintain adequate water storage, protect equipment from wildfire exposure and require regular testing. Before committing to a final option, the community should complete a wildfire-specific engineering and emergency-operations review that answers the questions above.
Reliable water during a wildfire is a public-safety requirement. The backup-power decision should be measured against that standard. Our Homes and Community depend upon it!
Facility-Priority Matrix
The following matrix is a planning framework, not a final engineering assessment. Facility names, exposure ratings and service impacts should be validated with current system drawings, site inspections and wildfire mapping.
Facility type | Water-system role | Wildfire exposure | Impact if power is lost | Priority | Recommended resilience |
Primary pumping facility | Moves water through the system | High | Service interruption, pressure loss and reduced firefighting capacity | Critical | Permanent generator, protected fuel supply, remote monitoring and tested manual procedures |
Water treatment or disinfection facility | Maintains water quality | High | Unsafe or restricted water service | Critical | Permanent backup power, protected controls, extended fuel capacity and emergency operating plan |
Pressure or booster station | Maintains pressure in elevated or distant areas | Medium–High | Low pressure or loss of service to specific neighbourhoods | High | Permanent or pre-connected mobile generator, local storage and rapid deployment plan |
Reservoir or storage facility | Provides reserve water and system buffering | Medium | Reduced reserve and limited ability to compensate for pumping failures | High | Protect access and controls; assess storage level, refill capability and generator connection |
Communications and control equipment | Enables monitoring, alarms and coordination | Medium | Loss of visibility and delayed response to failures | High | Battery or generator backup, redundant communications and manual fallback procedures |
Lower-criticality support facility | Supports operations but is not immediately essential | Low–Medium | Limited short-term effect on core water service | Moderate | Mobile, rental or shared backup; prioritize after critical facilities |
How to use the matrix: Facilities rated Critical should be assessed first for permanent backup power and wildfire hardening. High-priority facilities should have a documented connection or deployment plan. Moderate facilities may be covered through shared mobile equipment, rentals or operational contingencies.
Important limitation: This matrix classifies facility types rather than confirming the priority of any specific site. Final rankings should consider actual wildfire exposure, elevation, dependency relationships, population served, redundancy, access routes, fuel requirements and the time available before water service is affected.
Comments