20070326Comment.pdf

/~/'1 /10 If"
~ /1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbedan~aol.com
Monday, March 26 200710:03 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from Barbara Hornby follows:
- --- - - --- ----- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - ---
Case Number: SWS-W-06-01
Name: Barbara Hornby
Address: PO Box 127
City: Blanchard
State: Idaho
Zip: 83804
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: Barbedan~aol. com
Name of Utility Company: CDS STONERIDGE
Add to Mailing List: yes
UTILITIES
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I have lived in Blanchard on and off since I was a little girl. I am now approaching
my senior-citizen years. As far back as I can remember water was an issue of argument in
this valley, perhaps because our water is as good and valuable as gold but not always
appreciated as such. I have lived in other parts of the country that are not blessed withthe abundance of water found here. ---The cost in other places always higher and quality
always poorer. Customers in the Stoneridge area are fortunate to have good guidance and
management as well as the improved water quality and system that we have today. In spite
of this, I have strong objections about taking the goodness that nature provides and
making a profit without properly explaining the necessity. This concern is especially
important in an area where there are many low-income and retired residents who really can
not afford a sudden doubling PLUS of the price. Rate increases should always be gradual
and made out of need that is well documented. Otherwise it appears as greed.
Specifically, as a Stoneridge Resort Timeshare Owner, my concern is the proposed
charge to be imposed on the Resort. It is my understanding that each of the 146 units are
being accessed individually at a $38 rate even though there are only 5 meters to thebuildings. The pipes to the timeshares are smaller and older than pipes in the rest of
the water service area. The increase for the Timeshares amounts to 1,800 % (treating each
unit as a household), for the Golf and Recreational Community-57 % and for Happy Valley
users 93-169 %. The Golf Course is the highest user of water and yet the increase
percentage rate is the lowest. I worry that such a hike would mean an additional increase
in yearly timeshare fees. It seems unfair for timeshare owners to have to supplement the
needs of the rest of the water users PLUS face the potential of an additional increase toyearly timeshare fees.
I also feel that water conservation should be an issue of utmost importance. I am
unfamiliar with Idaho laws concerning water wastage and/or use of treated water. I feel
that effluent/waste water could (and should) be utilized for benefit especially in thecase of a golf course. The effluent water is presently pumped off site, at a loss ofwater and a loss of dollars for disposal. This water still goes to the aquifer that we
all pull from. It makes no sense to get rid of the wastewater that we could use to
irrigate the golf course and/or grounds.
The water company make-up and their jurisdiction, without representation also bothersme. It is my understanding that the water company is run exclusively by CDS BRIDGE
PARTNERS, the owners of the golf course, who are they, themselves, consumers. Even though
this company has managed the system well and have made some positive changes, the
proposed rate increase on the golf course is the lowest of all of the entities that usethe water. This puts them in a bad light with other consumers. There is the appearance
of a conflict of interest if they do not allow input and decision making abilities by allenti ties.... Stoneridge Resort, Happy Valley Residents, StoneRidge Homeowners (as well asStoneRidge Golf and Recreational Community). At the very least, management should have adiverse advisory board to help them with decision making. I believe that proper
representation can only improve service, promote better customer/management relations and
ensure a better balance and understanding for decisions that affect us all.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the way the PUC conducts workshops. Thank you for
giving us the opportunity to talk with you. However, it was apparent from the large
number of participants at the workshop that there were reasonable obj ections that needed
to be voiced as well as an interest in getting the facts straight. Many facts were not
available at the meeting, which fueled some of the anger. It was apparent that several
issues still needed to be investigated before questions could be accurately answered. It
is my understanding that the water company gets the final word before consideration by the
water commissioners. I believe the consumer should also have a final hearing where clear
answers and rebuttal (on both sides) could be given after the facts are all in. It would
make more sense to do the investigation prior to the workshop or hold the workshop (for
fact gathering/negotiation) and then come back for a final public workshop/hearing beforea decision is made. Perhaps, if the water company had been given an opportunity to give
their position/justifications for the increase there would have been a betterunderstanding. Additionally, representatives from all entities involved should have been
introduced. It would have been good to know what interests were represented in the
room...example-Timeshare Users, Resort Manager, Water Company Representatives, Happy ValleyUsers, Stoneridge Homeowners. A simple introduction and/or show of hands would have
helped defuse (and possibly even alleviated) the defensiveness that was apparent in the
room.
Thank you for your kind consideration and for taking the time to come to Blanchard tohear concerns. Hopefully, the decisions you are faced with will be fair, justified and
equi table so that good relations will prevail with management as well as with the
consumer.
Respectfully submitted by Barbara R. Hornby
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 207.200.116.203
- - -- - - --- - - -- - -- - - -- --- - - - -- - -- --- --