Answers on water just lead to more questions

DEAR EDITOR:

Re: “Property owners boiling mad over water policy,” Herald, A1, Sept. 29

I read Joe Fries’ article with great interest.

In it, Kris Johnson stated: “The reason the meter installations at no charge stopped was not because there were not enough to go around, it was because in 2011 or 2012 direction was provided that for properties under two arable acres, property owners would have to pay for the meter installation.”

I’d like to ask: Who gave that direction? And why?

Summerland has received provincial funding to install the meters. Originally, there was no talk of second meters. The municipality promised to provide pit meters for properties with irrigation lines or yard hydrants. At that time there were about 375 properties that fell into this category.

Why was this plan abandoned? There was never an explanation. Did the administration realize they underestimated the costs and didn’t apply for enough funding? Was the decision not to meter irrigation lines even legitimate?

Another statement by Mr. Johnston was: “In 2015, the district started charging a flat fee for those second lines based on arable acres.” This again is not entirely true. Small properties paid for their irrigation service at the same rate as agricultural properties long before the metering started except for the three or four years when the municipality failed to bill them.

I recommend: 1. Council rescind their hastily made decision and reconsider this and a few other water-related issues when there is the possibility for public consultation. 2. Stop forcing a handful of homeowners to pay for the administration’s mistake.

There has never been public consultation on any water issue except the water committee presenting their recommendations, which the council of the day and the administration largely ignored, and an open house.

Is this bylaw without any public input and consultation even legitimate? Elizabeth Bartosinski

Summerland