Shut the Gate?

As though that's the answer to reducing water consumption!
Sheesh.

But that's what a writer named David Henn suggests in his letter to the editor, printed today in the Morning Star.

"I find it rather frightening that local politicians are urging us to reduce water consumption and at the same time, condoning further development.

It is not rocket science to figure out that the more homes and complexes that are developed, the more water it takes to service them.

There is great concern worldwide about the rapidly declining availability of clean drinking water.  There are multinational corporations buying up fresh water resources for their profit.

The oil sands use enormous amounts of clean water to extract the oil.  The suthern U.S. is critically short of potable water and it is looking north for solutions.  Problems abound worldwide.

To read that our local politicians are urging us to reduce consumption while allowing further growth is ludicrous.

I agree that we should all conserve water and there are many ways of doing this.  

Local politicians could help by reducing further development.  Bigger is not necessarily better."

David Henn

While Mr. Henn says it's not rocket science that more people equate to more water use, he's certainly missing a fundamental point.  Growth of population--yessirreebob, everywhere--creates demand for homes and workplaces and goods and services that large and small businesses strive to provide because -- wait for it -- they can supply what the population demands.   For Profit.  Gulp!   

To suggest that local politicians could help by reducing further development is--to use his word--ludicrous.  Downright ludicrous.

A politician's mandate is to support his community and constituents.
And recognizing that communities grow, a politician's job is to administer orderly, if not ordered, growth.  And to balance the needs of the community with the taxes from constituents that meet those needs.
That historically has meant "majority rules", because a community run by the opinions of a minority simply isn't a community.  It would not accurately represent the needs of most of its residents or businesses. 

And who does he think pays for the increasing demands placed on politicians by that increasing population?  Everyone.  Residents and businesses.  Same with the increases necessary to continue providing those services, including the wages of service and product providers?  Public and private.

But maybe he had no children, so shut the gate?
A simple solution is often not a solution at all.

"So is he wanting to supply the U.S. with our (saved) water?"  queries Kia.

All agree that bigger isn't necessarily better.

But NIMBY-ism isn't the answer.

Maybe that letter writer proposes NIMW-Not in My World.
Instead, he could review Sociology.
And peruse the political science and public administration connection and Aristotle's Study of the State.

To underscore the point, in the same newspaper issue, "Coldstream approves plant" is the headline that announces the zoning change for the Pinnacle Renewable Energy plant in Lavington.
Politicians' votes:  No, from Councillors Kiss, Enns and Dirk.

A majority of four approved the rezoning:  Councillors Besso, Cochrane, McClean and Mayor Garlick.