Re: Aug. 8 Roundup's "Water Dept. releases list ..." and "My View."
The town already benefits greatly from July's heavy water users list. Their charges, when annualized, total over $411,000! That is certainly an impressive sum for the income from only twenty water meters. Critics of the town's budget may well recognize a very profitable "Cash Cow" and may expect the animal to be cuddled and protected, while the spotlight is deflected elsewhere.
Your editorial effectively illustrates several basic truths: "...unlike money, water is a shared resource..." and "...when our water deposits are being wasted, it comes out of an account belonging to everyone." (True, you glamorized the importance of water quite a bit:"... one that we all rely on for our very lives", but that's an editor's prerogative.)
The data you refer to is incomplete; it refers mainly to water usage, first and foremost, and to sources of water only incidentally -- and then only to those sources which may appear in the indefinite future (Mayfield Canyon, major remodeling of Blue Ridge Reservoir, etc.). What steps, if any, are being taken to preserve present aquifers?
For example, what is the capacity of Chaparral Pines' production well? It's probably the area's single largest, non-governmental user of electricity. Further, isn't its source the same aquifer as (or one immediately adjacent to) the town's successful wells? Like the listed users, it also takes from the "... precious water supply ..." referred to in your Aug. 8 editorial's final paragraph.
Is the goal to eliminate all grass (except for golf courses and municipal parks), flowers, and water-requiring greenery? Must they, too, go the way of Payson's inevitable exchanges of ponderosas for pavement?
Carroll M. Elmore, Payson