Everyone Needs To Share Cost Of Pine Water

Advertisement

Editor:

It seems that my recent comments regarding sharing the costs to improve our water supply are not appreciated by the part-timers, so I am going to try another approach to see if these folks will get the point or not.

I mentioned our past water provider and his poor service to our community and that comment was not well received by those who wish to ignore the very reasons we now own the water system, why the cost to improve it is significant, and how far we have come with the water supply now as compared to the water supply then.

I did not dwell on the past, I simply pointed out where we were in hopes they could appreciate where we are, but it appears that they do not appreciate how far we have come and they express strong resentment to paying their fair share of the costs to get here.

I did not suggest that water conservation is a thing of the past, nor did I condemn water conservation, or suggest that people should now waste water simply because they are paying a base rate that happens to include a quantity of water that is adequate for most consumers. What I did was point out that the base rate applies to all property owners evenly, period, and that is the only fair way to share the cost of improving the water system.

The part-timers feel that since they are not here full time, they should only pay for the water they use while they are here, not part of the cost to get it to their home, so, how about we look at another option?

What if the water board established a criteria to determine who is a part-timer and that these folks pay a per gallon rate for all the water they use based on the same volume scale as full-timers, along with a minimum monthly fee to keep the service active, or a turn on/turn off fee instead of a minimum fee. Just consider that there is a cost to read the meter and to generate an invoice for the water consumed and the consumer should pay that cost if he or she chooses not to pay a base rate.

However, such an option must include that the consumer agrees to pay the actual cost for the portion of the improvements that brings water to their property.

I am sure there is a way to establish this cost, and if the part-timers do not want to share the cost of improvements with the rest of us through a standard basic rate, then by all means, let them pay the full cost for their individual share of the improvements they benefit from and perhaps that will make them happy.

I do not care what it costs to bring water to your property, so long as you pay that cost if you are not willing to share the cost of bringing water to all properties equally, because I may be paying too much out of my share to bring water to your property and I sure don’t want you to benefit more than I do from what I am paying any more than you want me to benefit from what you are paying, so please, pay all of your costs out of your pocket, without help from us poor, unfortunate, hill folk who use more water than you do because we live here instead of only being a visitor.

Basically, I say buy your own lunch and eat what you want, then shut up.

Oh yes, for the record, there are three adults, two dogs, and five cats in my household, but no livestock. My outrageous water bill of $180 had no explanation attached other than “hauling fees” indicated and I am still waiting for Hardcastle to respond to my inquiry regarding same.

I am not, however, going without food, or water, while I wait.

Jim Estess

Comments

Michael Warren 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Estess - you'd be better served to deal with facts as they currently are vs. your bias with regard to the majority.

Telling those who disagree with you to "shut up" answers the question of "who is this person?".

Thanks for clearing that up.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.