In December 2017, city council passed the new water-sewer rate bylaws.
At one of their meetings, a councillor claimed that the city was not a leader in water conservation. I would have to agree with him.
The city uses water liberally at water parks and for its own lands’ irrigation purposes, perhaps to boost tourism. How can it do so when the few parks its manages are the only areas that are green, while the rest of our lawns are as dry as straw? It makes the town overall less attractive and hazardous to locals and visitors alike. It is bad enough that we inhale the thick smoke of neighbouring areas plagued by fires. Many concerned citizens feel that water conservation should not trump the risk of fire hazards in our town. Are we to be the next Fort McMurray or Southern California?
We live in a region of abundant rivers, lakes, and mountain streams fed by glacier water, yet our flowers, plants, and shrubs are reduced to tinder in the hottest months. Despite this, we are being told to conserve water. Perhaps the city has underestimated the real cost of water conservation. How much is it willing to pay mother nature for any harm caused?
In another publication, the city maintained that in 2005 “Castlegar exceeded Canadian and B.C. averages for water consumption.” I am not sure how this can be given that the population of Castlegar seems to be decreasing.
But let’s focus on the real issue here: Money. The city proposed rebates to the lowest users but failed to do the same for all residents whose usage is below their flat rates. At the last minute, the city retracted its proposal, stating that the lowest users will already be paying lower fees. But seriously, how can this occur if they are forced into a flat rate?
Currently, many multi-family (MF), single-family residences (SFR) and industrial commercial and institutional (ICI) users are being overbilled. Council randomly imposed a 50 per cent increase for non-metered households, a jump from the 10 per cent flat rate under the old system. This injustice is an example of how the new bylaws may worsen the situation for everybody. Though imperfect, wouldn’t the old rate-structure would be less unwieldy?
We may never know the answers unless a real debate is allowed. I think this dialogue needs to continue before new bylaws are instated.
Armando Cardoso
Castlegar