20060109Reconsideration Response.pdf

, Cell/ED
January 9, 2006
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
RE: Case No. EAG-05-03/ u...W::c. - fA) - 05" -o:s
~ .
, ..- a r)"
- '
to .1- i!
; l' !";i..~,i1:,
; ,
; j "-0
) '-,
lJili'jl~~ION
Dear Ms. Jewell
Please forward to the commission the following response to the reconsideration request submitted
by Eagle Water Company on January 5 2006 (or January 3 2006) concerning the above mentioned
water case.
Item No.1 states
. . . . ..
The 12-inch mainline from Well No.6 is irrelevant to Eagle Water
service of the Covenant Hill Subdivision This statement is absolutely false. In our letter of
November 25 2005 , we correctly pointed out to the Commission that if this were truly the case
then DEQ would not continue to condition the "Will Serve Letter" acceptance on Eagle Water
assurances of the timing of the construction for the offsite 12-inch loop from Eagle Water s Well
No.6. Please see DEQ's letter dated November 21 2005. This certainly indicates that for final
DEQ approval of Covenant Hill, the Eagle Water offsite 12-inch loop is necessary.
Item No.2 states Eagle Water never received the August th letter allegedly sent to it by Hillview
Development Corporation This is an odd assertion by Eagle Water. Hillview Development has
not alleged that it sent a letter to Eagle Water on August 17th.. The letter in question was from
Tomlinson Consulting, Inc and was hand delivered by Richard Tomlinson to Eagle Water s office.
A copy was also hand delivered by Richard Tomlinson to MTC Inc. (Eagle Water s engineer).
Mr. Jim Rees ofMTC Inc. acknowledges receipt of the letter from Richard Tomlinson and has had
several discussions with him about the letter. Why Eagle Water does not acknowledge receipt of
the letter we can only speculate. Also, the letter was merely a summary of the items that were
discussed with Eagle Water s president, Robert DeShazo, in a meeting on August 10 2005.
Additionally this letter was included in our submittal to the PUC on October 5, 2005 therefore Eagle
Water most certainly had reviewed it by then. Even in the PUC staff comments on November 9
2005, the PUC mentions they previously discussed with Eagle Water issues which were essentially
the substance of the letter submitted to Eagle Water on August 17 2005.
Item No.3 references ". . . . . . a letter from Eagle Fire Department verifying thatfireflow
requirements for the subdivision can be met by Eagle Water The only letter we can find in the
record from Eagle Fire Department that was submitted to the PUC by Eagle Water is a letter from
the Eagle Fire Department to Eagle Water on November 10, 2005. This letter does not contain any
reference to Covenant Hill Subdivision. It addresses a fire flow test from October 2002, in a
subdivision (Clear Creek Crossing) which is approximately 3/4 of mile east of the proposed
entrance to Covenant Hill. This fire flow may be unreliable as there have been numerous
connections made to the Eagle Water system since October 2002.
Item No.4 references a letter issued"
. . . . . . .
on November 2005, providing a cost estimate for
service to Covenant Hill Subdivision.
. . . .
. This is the first time we have seen this letter. Ifit
were truly issued on November 4, 2005, we would like to know to whom it was issued, and why it
was not submitted to the PUC along with the numerous submittals made by Eagle Water to the PUC
after November 4 2005, and prior to the PUC's Final Order of December 13 2005.
Item No.5 references a letter from Jim Rees. This letter acknowledges that Hillview Development
did not get a "will serve" letter from Eagle Water due to DEQ's concerns. It also acknowledges
that"
. . . . .
Service to Covenant Hill Subdivision would not adversely affect water supply or cause
undue hardship to existing Eagle Water customers if the loop to well Six (6) is completed"This
statement actually confirms that the off site loop is most certainly necessary to serve Covenant
Hill and counter to Eagle Water s claim in Item No.1 of their grounds for reconsideration that H
. . ,. . .
The 12-inch mainline from Well No.6 is irrelevant
In conclusion, we want to reiterate that Covenant Hill subdivision cannot remain in two separate
water service areas. We strongly believe the Commission made the best and proper ruling which
allowed United Water to be the single water service provider to Covenant Hill. When we were
submitting information in October and November of2005, we were worried about being delayed by
this issue with Eagle Water Company. It is now January 2006 and we continue to be delayed by
Eagle Water due to their last minute request for reconsideration. We have final design plans
completed and we have final bids for the entire Covenant Hill project. We have commenced
construction on the site. However we are not being allowed to finalize our contract with United
Water until the PUC's decision is made. This is beginning to cause Hillview Development the
unnecessary delay that we wrote about in our November 25 2005, letter to the P.UC.
We once again appreciate you taking the time to consider our response and hope you will allow us
to proceed on course with Covenant Hill in accordance with your final order of December 13 , 2005.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact us at the following:
Hillview Development Corporation
150 E. Aikens, Suite A
Eagle, Idaho 83616
[phone]
[phone] FAX
Sincerely,
--.-- --"'"
Jim Mer Ie, P esident
Hillview Development Corporation