LETTER: Hatchery’s stance on development has been clear

What is the taxpayer of Summerland willing to give up for the sake of a high rise development?

Dear Editor:

What is Summerland’s council thinking asking the hatchery to re-enter negotiations with Lark at this late date? Especially less than two weeks before the public hearing.

Why did one of the councillors start questioning the hatchery’s need for a contingency water supply at this late date?

I have been following this controversy for the past year and the hatchery’s stance has been clear each time.

They need a contingency water source to ensure their fish habitat and operation is protected.

Each time the Lark group has set forth a proposal it has been a band-aid approach.

A deep water alternate source requires a water licence. An aquifer protection plan is not the equivalent of an alternate water source.

A contribution of $600,000 towards a solution is not the equivalent of an alternate water source.

Are the people of Summerland willing to give up a district held water licence?

Has anyone bothered to check the cost to the Penticton Indian Band for the salmon hatchery they have built?

They have been passionate enough to spend millions of dollars to provide what Mother Nature has gifted to this community.

What is the taxpayer of Summerland willing to give up for the sake of an ill-placed high rise development?

And lastly why have some of the council members continued to pursue this project when they stated over a year ago the decision was based on the response of the hatchery?

It’s pretty clear to me. The hatchery has said no not once but four times. Why hasn’t council said no?

John Grozdanich

Summerland

Just Posted

Most Read