Sometimes the things that go on in government make a person want to scream.

Take the case that was in bylaw court on Wednesday.

Kim Dolson lives in a strata complex on Sandpiper Drive. She has a small area of grass that she keeps watered, which is nice because then it is pleasant to look at.

Dolson, however, made a big mistake. She did not read the City bylaw as it pertains to watering restrictions. Instead, she based her understanding about which days she could water on a television advertisement.

Because her complex is even-numbered, she thought that was her watering day. However, had she read the city website or the bylaw pertaining to water restrictions — something we all regularly do in our spare time — she would have realized her watering day was based on her individual unit’s address, which is an odd number.

So she watered every second day, but, sadly, it was the wrong day. She used no extra water. In fact, she likely used very little water at all, considering the size of her lawn.

One particular day, a neighbour decided to complain to City Hall about this awful offence, which leads me to something else that burns my butt about bylaw enforcement. So much of it is based on one complaint.

It’s the tattle principle that petty cowards generally use to deal with a neighbour. Often they’ve had a run-in with the neighbour over something else so they turn to the City to get revenge.

Rather than speaking directly to Dolson about her water violation, a phone call was made to bylaw enforcement who scurried on over to levy a $100 fine.

We can’t blame the judge in this case. He had no choice but to uphold the bylaw. Dolson admitted she had made an error by misunderstanding the bylaw.

We can’t blame the City’s lawyer for not dropping the case as a reasonable person might do given the circumstances. She was told to proceed by the bylaws department after giving a legal opinion that the City would, in all likelihood, win this case.

We can’t blame the bylaw enforcement officer or her superior. They have a directive issued in 2008 by City council that there will be zero tolerance for residents who violate water restrictions.

Therein lies the problem. While it is certainly easier for bylaw officers not to have to exercise discretion because a lot of water offenders have good excuses, discretion in government is a good thing.

Governments are designed to serve the people, not punish the people. That’s supposed to be a last resort and it’s why we have elected officials, along with civil servants. When good citizens make an honest error, elected officials don’t have to follow the letter of the law. They can exercise discretion themselves or give their officers some leeway.

Not only is there no room for discretion in water violations, there is also a minimum fine of $100. Apparently, that’s just standard for bylaw offences.

In Dolson’s case, the provincial court judge wanted to lower the fine, but couldn’t go below the minimum. Dolson was indeed watering on the wrong day and ignorance of the law, as we all know, is no defence.

Common sense tells us that the point of water restrictions is to ensure there is enough water in the reservoirs at all times. Dolson, with her miniscule water use, was not breaking the spirit of the law. Zero tolerance, however, doesn’t allow that kind of reasonable thinking on the part of a bylaw officer.

Council defends its actions by saying there was a period of education on water laws, but the grace period is over. Councillors should go back to the drawing board and rewrite the bylaw so all first-time offenders get a warning.

Two strikes, you’re out. But the first time? C’mon, council, get rid of the rigid backbone. A warning provision would also go a long way toward thwarting the vindictive tattlers as well.

And, best of all, City Hall wouldn’t look like a horse’s ass as it did in this case.

Susan Duncan is city editor of The Daily News. Her column appears Fridays. Email her at sduncan@kamloopsnews.ca.