20230713Comments_1.pdf

1
From: Dry Well <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Adam Rush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comment re: Case VEO-W-23-01

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns.

Dear Adam Rush, I am submitting this comment to you because the PUC website comment form is not accepting
comments. I hope the website can be fixed quickly. Is there another avenue for the public to
express concerns about cases brought before the PUC? Please accept this comment on my behalf.
Thank you,
Suzanne Knorr Comment:

Many households have dry wells and were waiting for water, some for over a year. I support constructing mainlines because residents have already or may run out of water in their wells in the future. The rate of development will continue and may accelerate if the decisions of our current at the city and county levels are any indication. One important consideration is that when the PUC approves the proposal, it will be a PERMANENT change in procedure. In the future, if there is a need to install water mainlines, it would simply be a matter of Veolia negotiating with the local municipality. This would bring Veolia water to affected well owners faster than the current process. However, our water supply is under the control of a very large foreign-owned corporate conglomerate whose corporate goals may or may not be in the best interests of Treasure Valley residents. Meanwhile, development is in overdrive, and the push is for increased density, which places more demand on the aquifer. IDWR already established the water table in South and Southwest Boise is receding by a foot per year. The groundwater flow model was only recently released and scenarios based on the water flow model have barely begun. Purveyors can simply raise rates on subscribers as the water table recedes and costs of obtaining water increases. Water is a necessary element for survival, and as such should always remain affordable. At least in this case, residents do not directly bear the cost of construction and will have reduced costs to hook up in the future under the ARPA agreement. For these reasons, I support PUC approval.