Editor:
Bruce Milne’s recent ad advocating an opinion that “Those who … use a helluva lot of water should be made to pay a helluva lot for it” is so very American.
This strategy, paying by the litre for water, seems fair, right? Lots of municipalities do it, but in truth, it does nothing to make access to water fair. The rich will continue to fill their ponds, their hot tubs, and their swimming pools, while seniors on a fixed income, healthy enough to stay in their homes and garden, will gradually give up one of the very activities that keeps them alive and vital – outdoor exercise, contact with soil and plants, and the satisfaction of growing their own flowers and vegetables. I’ve seen it already in Gibsons. Once on water meters, seniors scale back their gardens.
Gardening is a proven anti-depressant, it provides exercise and requires mental focus, all of which means that our senior gardeners are healthy and relying less on Sechelt Hospital, which benefits us all. Charging by the litre for water will impact the well-being of fixed income seniors across the Coast, impact garden centres that employ locals, and line our streets and neighbourhoods with dead and dying shrubs, trees and plants. That’s depressing, economically and emotionally.
It’s also unnecessary. Water treatment and distribution should be paid for as a percentage of property taxes. That’s a fair and realistic way to pay for needed infrastructure. Water is not a utility like electricity. Water is not a commodity. It’s not optional, and there’s no reason to inflict draconian penalties on gardeners of any age. There’s plenty of water. At this point, I think everyone is willing to pay for infrastructure. But pay for water by the litre here in the rainforest? That’s just immoral. Bruce Milne, I hope your government treats you as a senior with the care and respect every senior deserves, and doesn’t take away the things you love most in pursuit of false economy.
Kathy Para, Gibsons
