20030515Comment.pdf

GN /(.-0-0/-0 I
RECEIVED 0FtLEO
2003 MAY 15 AM 8: 38
:LJi\
.- j
V.:5UC
UTiLIT !ES COr1MISSION
. """,.... .,...."
May 12 2003
Everett, W A
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
POBOX 8370
BOISE, ID 83720-0074
RE:Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water System Inc.
COMMISSIONER:
I recently read in the local newspaper that there was a hearing and
tentative settlement reached with Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water System
Inc. I am an owner of property that is situated in the water district
and the article raised several questions for me to which I wish to
comment.
It is necessary that the water system and the IPUC come to a formal
understanding that will provide a long-term stability for the water
district without further reduction of the customer base. Recent well
drilling caused by the recent rate uncertainty has exacerbated the
current problems.
It appears that the current proposed monthly rate schedule of $48 for
resident users and $25 for non-resident users should enable the water
system owner to maintain the water system profitably and provide the
users the water they have been promised.
I am also concerned with the definition of "resident user . A resident
user should be defined as "one who lives on the property year round" and
a non-resident user should be derIDed as "a person who uses or lives on
the property no more than 8 months per year.
I am also requesting enforcement of the current Commission Order #29172.
Under that Order a penalty of $2 000 per day should be levied against
the water system owner per your regulation #61-705,61-706, and 61-707.
According to my calculations as of April 30, 2003 the water company
would have been in violation of the order for 301 days for each one of
my two lots, totaling 602 days times $2 000 per each day of violation.
The total penalty would be $1 204 000 for my two lots alone.
I believe that the Stipulated Order should require the water system to
'\ 11'In'
Page 2 of2
be subject to penalties for its past violations but be allowed to purge
those violations by future compliance with the new stipulated agreement.
The water system owner's desire and ability to comply with commission
regulations has been less then enthusiastic and some consequence for
future violation is the only way to assure that future compliance is to
be secured. Those measures should be included in the new agreement and
order.
If you have any questions about my comments or concerns, please do not
hesitate to give me a call. I am always available and wining to discuss
this matter.
Sincerely,
/l~
Marge and Lyle Peterson (Block 3, Lots 11 & 12)
932 E. Marine View Drive
Everett, VVA 98201
[phone]
5/12/03