Should PUD absorb water and sewer systems?

To the Eagle:  T'was refreshing to note the caution and restraint voiced by our county commissioners over sewer issues, as reported in last week's Eagle. Some of this is no doubt due to hindsight or experience, but credit is also due to Bob Junger's election campaign in which he brought sewer issues into focus. As Commissioner Brady pointed out, there has been propaganda issued by the usual suspects to encourage passage of coercive county ordinances to force folks in the suburbs to hook up to the system -- which is not only distasteful but also unworkable.

A decade ago when the original sewer expansion brouhaha erupted, I pointed out in these pages that they would have to hook up several hundred (mostly nonexistent) houses to collect enough moolah to repay the county's loan to the town, and, making a lame reference to the World's Fair in Flushing Meadow Park, N.Y., suggested we ought to rename the golf course "Flushing Hillside Golf Course." This earned me the eternal enmity of the then-manager of the golf course, but did not stop the project, which sits there to this day, unused and un-paid for. The numbers are even worse today. Any revenue generated by new hookups would be mostly eaten up by the expense of extending the line to the new hookups, and the new revenue stream would be but a drop in the huge fiscal bucket that comprises our gravity-defying sewer system and plant.

Best bet seems to be having the PUD absorb the water and sewer systems, but they need to proceed with due caution since they have no magic wand, and the liabilities outweigh the assets. They would need to rely on prudent management and economies of scale.

Or a grant from the Clinton Foundation? Or a Trump casino?

Howard Brawn

Puget Island