There is a lack of understanding on the part of some residents in the Pine/Strawberry community concerning the motives of those who question some of the actions of the Pine Strawberry Water Improvement District (PSWID) Board. This lack of understanding is most likely caused by the hecklers at PSWID Board meetings who refuse to listen, make noise and create an atmosphere where it is difficult to speak and/or hear what is being said.
Therefore, I would like to clear up some of the misunderstanding. First, the purchase of the Pine Water Company and the Strawberry Water Company (water companies) is not opposed. The March vote was a referendum to purchase the water companies and the majority of residents said that they wanted to proceed with the purchase. Why fight the majority? Second,here is no opposition tor. Pugel making a reasonable profit on the water that he will be selling to PSWID, nor is there opposition tois development of town houses or condos, an RV park and a car wash. Mr. Pugel has stated that he has sufficient water to meet the demands of his planned developments and to solve the water shortage problem in Pine. His assertion is accepted.
However, there are concerns about whether the present PSWID Board is watching out for the best interests of the people who elected them.
The PSWID Board has hired an attorneyho is known to represent several parties with whom the PSWID Board will be negotiating water sharing agreements. To make it plain, the PSWID Board has hired Mr. Pugel's attorney to represent the public when itegotiates with Mr. Pugel. "A man cannot serve two masters," andn attorney cannot fairly represent more than one siden negotiations.
The public deserves to be represented by an attorney who is totally on the side of the public during water sharing negotiations. The PSWID Board will show that it is looking out for the best interests of the public when it hires a new attorney.
It is well toote that the initial water companies purchase proposal presented to Mr. Hardcastle contained a passage that conveyed the assets of the water companies to PS Water L.L.C.nd not to PSWID. Conveying the assets to the wrong party is a majorypographical errorhat should have been found by the attorney and his staff before the document left his office. The mistake certainly should have been found by one of the seven people on the PSWID Board when they reviewed the document prior to presenting it to Mr. Hardcastle. After all, someone should be looking out for interests of the people who are picking up the tab. Please rememberhat it is the taxpayerhoill payll of the costs involved inroducing this faulty, uselessocument.
Please stop the heckling at PSWID Board meetings and start listening to what is being said. The concerns being raised are well-founded.
Bernice E. Winandy