20070109Petition.pdf

January 5, 2007
RECEIVED
2001 J~\N -9 PH 2: 10
Jean Jewell
Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho, 83720-0074
IDAHO PUfJ IC -
,..-
UTILITIES (;OMf~~IS;j!Ui.
RE: Case # SPL- W -06-
Dear Ms. Jewell
Attached is a petition circulated (with near fifty signatures)in the Spirit Lake East and
Treeport Subdivisions during the holiday season. It is a request for a fonna1 hearing or
another workshop with a better notification of the residents served by Spirit Lake Water
Company. It includes some of the concerns we, as customers, have regarding the service
and maintenance of our water system by SL Water Company over the past years.
We feel more signatures could be gotten if we allowed ourselves more time. However
we are concerned if we wait another week or so it would be too late for the
commissioners to consider our concerns before their decision is made.
As you can see, several signatures are on different sheets. This was due to the fact we
gave copies of the petition to residents in different parts of the community. To save on
postage we consolidated the signatures under one cover sheet.
It is with a great sense of urgency that we appeal to the PUC and are afforded a fonnal
hearing prior to any decision by the Commission. The personal address of community
residents to the Commission will help them to understand the need for the suggested
upgrades by both the Idaho DEQ and the engineering finn of Welsh Comer. We hope
this petition will help the commissioners to know we, as a community, are concerned
about the state of our water system. We hope they will place certain demands on SL
Water Company to provide an adequate generator, fix the leaks in the system, keep the
reservoir full and provide upgrades to meet demand if or when they allow an increase in
our rates.
fJ/ihdISIT e 0 re~foffue
Customers of SL Water Company
CERTIFIED MAIL
' f""'i"i;~
"-'\ . \,
.: 1: i ~c ,,:;,)
Petition to PUC Commission
2007 JAN 9 PM 2:
IDAHO f;!)(3; if'
UTILITIES C6Mf:.~isSIOI;To: Jean Jewell
Secretary of the Commission
RE: Water Rate Increase Request
Spirit Lake East Water Company
Ref: Case # SPL- W -06-
Please know that all signatures contained herein are residents of Spirit Lake East and Treeport
subdivisions and are consumers of Spirit Lake East Water Company. This petition is designed to
address both the current request for a rate increase by Spirit Lake East Water Company and
complaints regarding the management and maintenance of the current water system as well as
issues pertaining to past years.
Our issues and complaints are as follows:
1. SLE Water has not reported on water outages to the PUC or DEQ as is required by State
regulatory standards. E-coli is a defmite danger to consumers when the pressure drops
below 20 psi and requires that residents be notified of the danger. This has not always
happened and when it did, the notice was too late to be of help. During this past weekend,
black particles were visible in the water following the outage , creating potential hazards
to residents.
2. SLE Water has owned this system for over 30 years and has only provided a minimal
amount of maintenance. They have not provided upgrades as needed for the increased
number of homes it serves. It was not until a major outage in 2004 that DEQ found
numerous issues with the system which did not meet standards. Since that time, SLE
Water has been required to make major repairs at considerable cost. If the system had
been properly managed and upgraded this cost would not have been as great and they
would not need an increase to recoup their loss. Residents are sitting on a virtual time
bomb of possible hazardous material in our water lines due to breaks in a poorly
maintained system.
3. SLE Water has not provided sufficient back-up equipment in order to ensure potable
water is available during and after all power outages. The present generator has not
functioned during our power outages as evidenced during the weekend of December 15
2006. The community was without wa~~r for nearly two days. In July 1998, the
community was without water for three days. Again, in October 2004 the system was
without water for 10 days while SLE Water searched the nation for a pump to replace the
failed one. There have been several other instances which lasted for hours rather than
days.
4. SLE Water has been subsidized by a parent company, Hansen Industries.
If it no longer enjoys any subsidies from the parent company, we as consumers want a
specific plan on how SLE Water is going to maintain and upgrade our system prior to a
rate increase.
5. There was less than 6' of water in the reservoir when our past outage occurred. It drained
so quickly we feel there must be leakages in the system. We as consumers deserve a full
disclosure of the pumping rates in conjunction with leakage rates. This is vital to
knowing if lines need replacing or repair.
6. It is our understanding Hansen Industries has hired an engineer from Welsh Comer
Engineering. This ftml performed a study of the system for needed upgrades and repairs.
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress ofSLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. Ifthis is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State oOdaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PU
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implementing new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many. If
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort be
made to contact customers of SLE Water of the meeting.
Printed Name
3o~1 g1\). S+. ...Joe Dr.
3o8'\~ fV ~t-J~ Dr.
1Y.~~J
~o71o JJ ("111* DR..
016
~ ~
S;P;:/€;:bl2.
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress ofSLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. If this is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State of Idaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PUC
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implementing new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many. If
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort be
made to contact customers of SLE Water ofthe meeting.
UJup~((,rt~ fA
()fJJptult'T
Address
SJJC)~ 1)r-
/2
..:--~ .~ .' \,....,... ;'
.A.-.LJoC.... \i
(...
~(P
'L7~
~:2f3 Ai edl/
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress ofSLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. If this is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State ofidaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PUC
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implementing new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many.
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort be
made to contact customers of SLE Water of the meeting.
Printed Name
fl- f~ r+'1
Address
:3~7Sy ,/t/ -SjJ6e: j)r-
/0+ /.2
s/9c;/A./- ~/~/r 2)(.J..or
tJ,~jV-J ~Dy-
l'()T 1d.-
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress of SLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. If this is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State ofidaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PUC
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implem~nting new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many. If
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort be
made to contact customers of SLE Water of the meeting.
Printed Name Address
ALEt~F.- 'D~.
5"7 U). CJ) f1,
() ~ j
~Y"b$.. N tJ dY~
r2t V e
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress ofSLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. If this is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State of Idaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PUC
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implementing new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many.
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort be
made to contact customers ofSLE Water of the meeting.
Printed Name Address
I:!
Petition to PUC Commission cont.
Printed Name
\~ \ \ \
Address
30 CD:J .so\-- ~o c-
Spc" r ~'t Lc:. \( (,
Petition to PUC Commission cont.
Printed Name Sie:nature Address
..?
7;)" 0..--
52JJ72N ;VelUJll.ft~ P
PtN IcE tlOUJJb
R~ rg~r Y (Xl
T ...
They also hired an attorney from the Idaho Attorney General's office which was
monitoring the progress ofSLE Water to meet the demands ofDEQ. Ifthis is true, the
consumers are at a distinct disadvantage as SLE Water would have inside information not
available to us petitioners. As a relatively small group appealing to a governmental
agency, we do not have access to major legal support systems. We can only wish for
fairness on what other water systems are provided for in the State of Idaho.
7. SLE Water has been showing a loss in its annual reports. We would request the PUC
auditors review Hansen Industries employee time spent doing SLE Water tasks as
opposed to Hansen Industry tasks. Also, can a rate increase be justified to maintain
existing equipment verses implementing new equipment in order to upgrade the system?
We as consumers of the SLE Water Company specifically request either a formal hearing or
another workshop or both in order for the Commission to hear our concerns, as they are many. If
a hearing is granted we understand the Commission uses the newspapers to notify the consumers
of the meeting. This has not been successful in the past so we are requesting an extra effort
made to contact customers of SLE Water of the meeting.
Address