Puget Island residents should avoid water plant

To The Eagle:

The conflict over the Puget Island Water system between the city of Cathlamet and the Wahkiakum PUD is at a crises point. The posturing and bickering between both parties are only going to lead to hurting the rate payers on the systems.

Over the eight years that I served on the Board of Commissioners of the Wahkiakum PUD (2002-2010), I witnessed multiple incidences between the management team and my fellow commissioners over the inability of the City of Cathlamet to be able to justify their actual costs in providing water to the ratepayers of Puget Island. In 2002 when Lisa Trott was the auditor at the PUD, there was no question that the PUD was by far the most competent of the two operations. Today, the city and its counsel appear to be at par with the competency of the PUD.

The city water system plan/contract was originally founded as a partnership between Puget Island residents and the city of Cathlamet water users. The city has documented that the existing contract does not adequately compensate the city for costs affiliated with the financial costs of upgrading and expanding their system to meet the standards imposed on the city by the state. The existing contract must be modified/amended to meet the new state regulations from the Department of Health and Dept. of Ecology concerning the continued removal of water from the Elochoman River source.

These infrastructure upgrades and the need for additional water capacity will be very expensive and these costs must be allocated to all of the users of the system.

The other option, which I strongly oppose, is that the city would not renew their existing contract with the Puget Island water system and the Puget Island water system would have to begin the very expensive process of seeking permits increasing revenue, build and operate a separate water system serving their needs.

This approach from the PUD is financially unacceptable to me and hopefully to the ratepayers on Puget Island. Neither of the managers of the PUD nor Commissioner Jungers live on the Island and they would suffer no financial losses due to their decision.

So what are my suggestions for the short term and long term concerning this crisis?

1). Ask the city council not to have a third reading of the ordinance this November and thereby postponing the vote on concealing the existing contract when it expires. A decision of this magnitude should be delayed until at least the Dec. Meeting. I also strongly urge both parties to schedule a series of public meetings for both Puget Island and the city of Cathlamet water customers with a goal to inform the public of the significant changes that may occur as a result of these two organizations being unable to reach a reasonable reconciliation of differences. Let’s put all the facts on the table so that all the participants will be equally informed of the decision process and its ultimate affect on their rates.

2). Hire a third party mediator (professional) to moderate the public meetings.

3). If the PUD cannot meet their obligations to the Puget Island ratepayers, the ratepayers should consider alternate agents to act as their provider of services for their water system. Alternates might by some of the following: 1. City of Cathlamet. 2. County of Wahkiakum Public Works. 3. or an outside professional company to actually run the water system providing all services presently provided by the PUD.

The ratepayers are financially responsible for the debt of the Puget Island system, and it may be time for those ratepayers to evaluate the effectiveness of the PUD in meeting their needs.

Since I am presently living in Texas ,I can be reached via my e-mail at llrpud1@hotmail.com and I would be willing to discuss these issues further with anyone who would be so interested.

Please get involved as it is your water system and you will pay dearly for inaction if the wrong decisions are pursued by the PUD.

Larry Reese, Puget Island