Summerland keeping the controversy meter running

Amade-in-Summerland controversy about second water metres (called a domestic second service or DSS) for those left out in the initial meter roll-out has re-surfaced.

A recent pair of letters I received gave me several options. To the district’s credit, the letters are quite comprehensive and answer most questions a homeowner might have. This subject is a moving target and policies may change between time of writing and time of publishing.

Option A: Disconnect

Option B: Pay $3,500 for a meter in addition to your current meter or combine domestic and DSS into one meter.

The letter went out to an estimated 240 properties between the sizes of one-quarter and two acres. There are 1,890 other properties of the same size that have only one meter.

Let us go back to ancient political history about meters in Summerland.

In 2009, Summerland was awarded a $1.9 million grant to install meters. Two-thirds of the program cost came from senior government grants, with the remainder from reserves. Too bad it was not enough. Small properties with a second connection for irrigation were left out of the initial roll-out, which brings us to where we are today.

Summerland maintains two sets of pipes.

One handles treated water for domestic use for drinking, bathing, toileting, etc. The other one, with cheaper untreated water, is intended for irrigation of farmers’ crops.

The dual system lessens the load on household water and may protect household water pressures in hot weather when farmers have to water their crops or face economic losses. It makes sense in a district with a high number of farms within its boundaries. Keep in mind this dual supply is not universal and some farms through no fault of their own use treated water, but pay the untreated rate.

There seem to be incompatible policies in Summerland.

Meters are installed to encourage conservation of water as opposed to a flat rate where one could consume as much water as one wanted. Untreated water use should be encouraged to lessen the load on the WTP and reduce costs, but anybody getting a DSS meter will pay treated water rates. All property owners are to be treated fairly. All property owners are to pay their fair share of costs. All water connections must be metered.

Successive councils punted the hot potato down the road. Many of the 240 affected feel they deserve two free meters. Before the meter roll-out, the DSS was subject to a flat monthly fee geared to the size of the property. Oddly enough, in around 2011, Summerland staff eliminated the flat fee and for three years DSS was free. In 2015, the flat fee was reinstated.

So, the problem we have is, the approximately 1,890 properties paying full domestic rates for watering their lawns and gardens are subsidizing the 240 DSS paying a flat rate, or no fee at all for three years.

The flip side is why should a DSS meter cost $3,500 when all the other meters were free? Especially annoying is the cost of the meter is less than $700. The $2,800 to install it in a pit seems excessive.

Council seems to ignore the other burden on those property owners who may be forced to disconnect as a result of the onerous cost, then face the challenge and cost of connecting their irrigation and moving the controls to the house pipes.

The connection and controls are likely close to the road now. These 240 owners have a second connection, which is of some value when it comes time to sell. The district is taking that value away for those who can not afford the $3,500.

The argument has been made that the $3,500 is justified by owners enjoying cheap or free water on the DSS for a long time caused by the district’s financial mismanagement. I guess those savings should have gone into the bank.

We all want our properties to look attractive. Expect a number of withered brown lawns in the coming years. What is also concerning is the prospect of those in the fire interface areas reducing watering, increasing the risk to themselves and neighbours.

The district will have a hard time convincing both sides they have both been treated fairly and equally.

As an example: Two one-acre property owners, side by side, one has a second connection and uses as much water as they want, and the other has always had to water their yard with a hose from the house or an underground system.

This is not fair to that person (a member of the silent majority) without a second connection. That person does not say too much on Facebook or because he wants to get along with his neighbour, but you can believe he does not like it.

If you live on a lot between one-quarter and two acres (unless you are classified as a farm) you will need to water your yard through your domestic meter, just like your 1,890 neighbours and everyone else in practically every other community.

Those 240 properties will translate into almost 500 angry voters next election. A swing of that many votes would be enough to negatively effect every sitting politician’s re-election bid.

Faint praise to the present council for putting the issue to bed after 15 years.