Dear Editor,
I would like to comment on the secondary water project in South Willard. I happen to have a larger property of 1.5 acres—most lots in the area are .5 acres. We moved here because we could afford a larger property. We wanted our children to experience a little bit of the farm life that I had as a child.
It appears that I will now be forced to pay over $138 per month for secondary water ($830/yr for six months of service). I consider watering most of my property optional (pasture for a couple of cows). Even my yard isn't vital to the welfare of my family. Certainly, less critical than electricity, natural gas, or garbage collection. Now I will be forced to pay for a non-critical service and it will literally be my largest utility cost. More than my natural gas, internet, and garbage combined, and also more than my power bill. I can choose to turn off any one of those other services, but not my secondary water?!? The water district is quick to point out that it is a service not a tax, but I can't opt out and it is paid through my property taxes. That doesn't sound like a service to me.
I have several other neighbors on larger lots, none of which voted for secondary (to my knowledge) because of the high costs. I even have one neighbor that has xeriscaped his entire yard (no grass, only rocks). He will have to pay for water that he will never even turn on. I have never considered myself antigovernment, but I am starting understand that point of view.
My grievances are:
1. Services should not be forced upon individuals (opting out should be possible).
2. Lack of payment should not result in a lien on my property. Rocky Mountain power can't take my house if I choose not to pay my bill; they just shut down my service. Why is this any different?
3. Hookup fees should not be based on lot size as it is not an accurate way to distribute the cost of a secondary water system. It does not require any more pipe or valves to service my larger lot than if my lot was smaller (I don't even get a bigger valve). They don't have to dig up any more road for my big lot than if I had a small lot. The only thing that changes is the diameter of the pipe and not by much. Even if every lot serviced was larger, they could simply adjust the pipe diameter slightly to carry the needed water. A 10" pipe carries roughly 3 times as much water as a 6" pipe. My real-system burden is the additional cost of a slightly bigger pipe and should be amount to less than a 10% increase, not 300%. Applying a linear cost based on square feet of the lot may be easy to calculate, but is not a fair distribution of the system cost.
4. I may use more water than a smaller lot, but I should be able to pay based on water usage, not a formula based on lot size. This way I can control my bill based on how green I want my pasture to be.
How is it equitable, moral, right, or fair for government to force me or others to buy a service? If I choose not to water, then I should not have to pay for it. At the bare minimum I should be able to get a meter and pay on usage. Also an appropriate impact would be based on real costs, not lot size.
Respectfully,
Jacob
