Editor:
I’ve been traveling through drought-stricken Oregon and California the last month, while following the Sunshine Coast Stage 4 restrictions debate.
Regarding the SCRD situation, the outcry seems far-fetched. SCRD is not responsible for the lack of rain or snowpack, nor for our ridiculous consumption levels. People hardly want to pay for the water they use now, yet believe that the SCRD should have built larger facilities years ago – but who would have paid for those facilities then? Ultimately if you expect your government to capture, store, test and treat the water, and then pump it to your house, you will require a water meter, and you are going to pay for the meter, and for every drop of water you use. Which part is not clear or not fair? If you don’t like it, perhaps put in your own well.
Regarding the Gibsons situation, the idea of a huge construction hole in close proximity to the ocean on one side and the aquifer on the other is, of course, on face value, quite reckless. Anyone with half a wit can see that. A development that size should not be built within 1,000 yards of the aquifer, never mind 100 feet. In the years and decades to come, this will almost certainly fall under the category of “What were they thinking?”
So when it comes to water, on the one hand you have the SCRD trying to do the right thing and people complain because it costs money. On the other hand, you have Gibsons council doing what is quite obviously a risky thing in order to get some additional tax revenues, and everyone cheers because their taxes won’t go up. From afar, the problem seems obvious: there is too much irony in the water.
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
