20230410Comments (2)_2.pdf

1

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Melanie Orullian
Submission Time: Apr 7 2023 3:44PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3554 South 2000 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84109

Name of U�lity Company: Island Park Water

Case ID: ISL-W-23-01

Comment: "Hello, my name is Melanie Orullian and my husband and I purchased a cabin in the Aspen Ridge subdivision
of Island Park in 2011 and it has been a wonderful experience with fantas�c people at Aspen Ridge. We have had various
issues with Island Park Water and Dorothy over the past 11 years. Ini�ally, it was not receiving invoices and then
receiving late no�ces in April and there were past due amounts that were not past due and in fact had been paid. I
spoke with Dorothy early on making sure I understood what was expected. I was told that if we didn't connect our
vacant lot to Island Park Water by a certain a date we would "never be able to connect it". Dorothy told me this a few
�mes and a�er speaking with other owners I just didn't want to talk with her and listen to threats any longer. Seeing this
case come up caused me to really look at the frustra�ons: many boil water orders a�er the fact, lack of water pressure
most �mes, told we can't have more then 3-4 people using water in the cabin, no future hook-up on vacant lot as stated
above, system not built for winter use so it's best not to use it, system was built for seasonal and limited use (no more
than 2 summer weeks a year for each cabin). I understand she is is the only employee, but it is her business and we pay
our annual fee every year to provide water use all year. Most importantly, we need safe and reliable water year a round.
This past month we stayed at a hotel because we were concerned about water issues, and that shouldn't be the case.
We are not concerned about the $280 annual fee, but we are concerned with it appearing not to be spent on
improvements of the water system. Other than having issues with pumps breaking and/or pipes breaking, I'm not aware
of any improvements to the water system in the last 12 years. As an aside, I'm sensi�ve to Dorothy's personal issues as
we all deal with health issues, deaths, work problems, etc.; this is why I was hesitant to complain, but this is a service
that directly relates to the health and well-being of each cabin owner and can't be ignored any longer."

------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cammi Vanderbeek <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Jon Kruck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Island Park Water Tes�mony/Complaint

Cammi Vanderbeek
3529-3531 Paterson Road
Island Park, Idaho 83429
801-458-5491
[e-mail]
2

Good morning Mr. Kruck. I’ve spent numerous hours combing through texts, etc. in order to provide an accurate
account of my experience with Island Park Water, and Dorothy McCarty, over the last several years. As a result, my
statement is too lengthy for upload to your site. So, I’m ataching the statement here, via email. Can you please make
sure it finds its way to the correct place? If you have any ques�ons, please feel free to reach out. Thank you.

Cammi Vanderbeek
[phone]

To whom it may concern,
I had not yet submited a statement regarding Ms. McCarty, and Island Park Water, prior to the hearing and public
comment, for several reasons. One of which, I was s�ll in ‘nego�a�ons’ with her to provide water for a lot my father
purchased last year, which she had denied for over 9 months, yet was in IP Water’s coverage area. Two, the fear of
retribu�on.
Ms. McCarty finally approved my father’s connec�on, via text, several weeks ago, likely to remedy one of her
outstanding complaints prior to the hearing.
As I listened to Ms. McCarty’s tes�mony via phone, I was so�ened a litle, because my mother shares some of her health
issues, but I also realized that Ms. McCarty was no longer capable, and hadn’t been for some �me, of managing this
water system. I couldn’t imagine anyone seeing it another way. Then, as she con�nued with her tes�mony, I became
increasingly frustrated that she wasn’t answering ques�ons honestly, especially those that had impacted me directly,
and that I have first-hand knowledge of. I was fearful that her inaccurate and dishonest tes�mony would allow her to
con�nue managing the water systems. The years of frustra�on I’ve encountered, due to Ms. McCarty, simply cannot be
tolerated any longer.
Therefore, I’m wri�ng to share my experience with Ms. McCarty and Island Park Water.
We purchased an exis�ng cabin, already connected to Island Park Water, in early spring 2020. That cabin was sold with
an adjoining lot (separate Tax ID and lot #). A�er closing, I made calls to local u�li�es to transfer/begin services. When I
reached Island Park Water, I was told by Ms. McCarty I owed a $200 connec�on and a $280 tariff for the coming year. I
was preparing to send the payment, then remembered seeing IP Water on our closing documents. Ms. McCarty has
directed the �tle companies to collect the $200 connec�on and $280 tariff at closing. I told her I had already paid at
closing. She claimed she didn’t have a record of that and hadn’t received it and I’d have to pay her directly. I reached out
to the �tle company, who checked their records, and assured me a payment had been made and deposited/accepted by
IP Water. I reached back out to Ms. McCarty and atached a copy of my closing documents proving it was collected at
closing. Ms. McCarty didn’t respond. I can assure you, there have been numerous instances where she’s goten away
with double billing because no one expects to pay a u�lity during closing, and upon transfer, they’ve double-paid her
fees, at her request. I’m certain a look at her ‘accurate’ record keeping will show this.
Several months later I reached out to Ms. McCarty for a leter sta�ng my account was current, as required by Fremont
County for a short-term rental permit. Ms. McCarty refused to send the leter and claimed she couldn’t allow me to rent
the cabin because it was commercial/hotel usage.
I reached out to Ms. McCarty, on another occasion, reques�ng a water sample report, relevant to my subdivision,
another permit requirement of Fremont County. Ms. McCarty refused to supply the report.
In spring of 2021, we began construc�on on a cabin, on the adjoining lot. I called Ms. McCarty to obtain permission to
connect to IP Water months in advance of construc�on.
3

An assump�on was made, that connec�ng a single-family home, to a water u�lity that services that parcel, would be as
simple as an applica�on and payment. Unfortunately, not. My ini�al request for connec�on for the adjoining lot and
new construc�on cabin was made in early 2021. Ms. McCarty claimed to be out of the office numerous �mes and said it
was s�ll winter and there was no hurry to approve. I con�nued to ask for the process to obtain approval to connect, so
we could be ready when the ground was, and she said she’d send me an applica�on.
On eight different occasions Ms. McCarty claimed that she had mailed me that applica�on. Each �me I requested an
applica�on, I reconfirmed my mailing address, never receiving the applica�on. I asked if she could please email it, and
she claimed that it must be sent by regular mail and that I needed to make sure I wasn’t ‘throwing it away’, because she
was ge�ng �red of sending it. I diligently checked the mail, following 8 separate requests, week-a�er-week, never
receiving an applica�on, despite claims it was sent.
During a phone conversa�on at one of the many atempts I made to obtain an applica�on, Ms. McCarty told me that
years ago, previous owners of the property waived any rights to water on that lot and, therefore, she couldn’t provide
me water. She went on to say that I’d have to put in a well and she’d have Roger contact me to do a survey to determine
if I could have a well. She explained that she, and senior water rights holders, would have to allow me the share
necessary to drill one. She then explained I may have a dry lot, if it’s not approved. There were numerous conversa�ons
surrounding this via phone and text.
Ms. McCarty then stopped referencing the waived water connec�on, and told me that I couldn’t have the shed or
garage on my current lot, because the CC&R’s disallowed it. I combed through the CC&R’s, as I had before purchase, and
no limita�ons exist on sheds, garages or outbuildings (which existed when we purchased the property). I told Ms.
McCarty that and she told me I was crazy, that she didn’t know where I was ge�ng my informa�on, and that she’d been
“put in charge of those CC&R’s and HOA (which doesn’t exist), years prior”. She then went on to tell me that since my
shed is set on, or near, the property line to the adjoining lot, that it was now one lot. She insisted I’d have to remove the
shed and/or garage, because they aren’t allowed, according to the HOA, she’s in charge of, that doesn’t exist.
Since when can a u�lity dictate whether you can have a shed or garage? Perhaps placement, due to u�lity easements,
but it certainly isn’t within a u�lity’s right to determine building codes or decipher non exis�ng HOA rules. Upon
checking with her again, she responded, ‘I won’t actually make you move your shed or garage, have a nice day.’ What???
Why??? Weeks of denying a connec�on based on the shed and garage. Weeks of me researching and sending
informa�on showing my property is in compliance, only for it to be a joke. It’s not just me. Stories like this exist
everywhere. I promise you that many have feared stepping forward because she’ll put off fixing a broken line, threaten
to disconnect, etc.
Ms. McCarty con�nued to say she would send the applica�on, which was never received. She con�nued to be out of the
office (auto responder set on text), not respond, etc., during numerous atempts at obtaining an applica�on.
At this point we’re into July. The founda�on has been dug, and u�li�es, aside from water, have been laid, and
connected. Ms. McCarty threatens an $1,100 charge for unauthorized connec�ons. I believe she con�nues to cause
frustra�on and deny connec�on, hoping to be able to charge customers that fee. A�er speaking with several local
contractors, who have worked on her system, they’ve become so wary of her unprofessionalism and lack of response,
they lay the lines and connect, and advise you pay her once she’s authorized it and move on
I reached out to Ms. McCarty again in early September reques�ng connec�on. She said, “A�er speaking with an
engineer it was the decision that approval for a second connec�on will be for a ¾” service line, which is sufficient.”
I then reach out to my contractor to let him know we’ve finally received approval. He tells me a ¾” line is NOT sufficient
and he needs direc�ons for an access point. These lines aren’t located by a u�lity loca�on service…at least mine couldn’t
be.
4

I reach out to Ms. McCarty, again, to discuss the service line size and to get direc�ons for accessing the line. She tells me
I wasn’t actually approved for a connec�on, but if they did, it would be for a ¾” line. She says it will be a limited
alloca�on, not for hotel usage or short-term rental, and for 3-4 people max.
At the beginning of October, I ask her how to obtain ‘real’ permission to connect. She then tells me I need to submit my
approved building plans and a $200 review fee before she can authorize connec�on. This is a�er more than 6 months of
communica�on…October 8th. She’s now reques�ng approved building plans and review fees, when this hadn’t been
men�oned once during months of requests and communica�on. No building plan request was made, no review or fee
was men�oned. So, I now submit my plans for review.
I reach back out to assure she’s received the plans and to beg for connec�on before the weather turns. She responds by
saying. “The 2021 season is closed for new connec�ons due to weather, thus if approved, connec�on will be next spring
a�er the frost is out of the ground.”
I respond how unfortunate that was because I’d been reques�ng connec�on for months, and that she’d never asked for
a plan once during that �me. It was an unseasonably warm October, where we hadn’t seen snow or freezing
temperatures yet. I had an open trench wai�ng for connec�on approval, which could have been granted as the weather
wasn’t yet an issue…it was in the 60’s-70’s
She responded, “I will watch for your plans. I am not in the office un�l Tuesday however I did mail you the applica�on a
long �me ago. Just send that in with your plans. If you have misplaced it, I can mail that again.” (This would be the 10th
�me she’d promised to mail and didn’t.) She goes on, “Then you can send all this in with a check. (Note Ck doesn’t
cons�tute approval. $200 fee for review of pending connec�on. $200 CONNECTION FEE) There is actually no rush
because as I have said the pending review/pending approval date will not happen un�l the weather permits in the spring
with approved contractor. Guessing this could be late May but difficult to determine right now as totally depends on
weather.” That is an exact copy of a text from her on my phone, which I’m happy to supply.
So, the weather changes late October, I have an open trench and no approved connec�on a�er more than 7 months of
abuse and neglect to approve.
In early April, 2022, the following year, and approximately a year a�er first asking for approval, I reach out to Ms.
McCarty again for the applica�on. She responds, “I’ll send the applica�on AGAIN (in all caps)…as I’m not able to email it
you. Will be out of the office for a few days.” I didn’t receive the applica�on, yet again.
At this point, I reached out to Chris Hecht at PUC. I explain everything that had happened up to this point, and that she
con�nues to deny water connec�on to a single-family home, within her coverage area. I explained that she won’t
approve because I have garages and sheds, because she’s in charge of the HOA (that doesn’t exist), because the water
connec�on was waived at some point, and because I plan to short-term rent, like many others on her water systems.
And you know what? Mr. Hecht SIDED WITH MS. MCCARTY on the short-term rental aspect. You have got to be kidding
me! At this point, I provide governing documents from the Idaho Department of Water Resources, which read as
follows: The por�on with quotes, in all caps, I highlighted for Mr. Hecht.
a. Single family houses: “A HOUSE USED AS A RESIDENCE BY A SINGLE FAMILY IS A DOMESTIC USE, EVEN IF IT’S A RENTAL”.
A house used solely for a business (such as some day care centers and some offices) is a commercial use. If the house is
used as a residence, but the resident uses part the house for a business (such as a beauty shop in the basement or a lawn
mower repair shop in the garage) the use is domestic.
Mr. Hecht responded and highlighted the following por�on (in caps, with quotes):
a. Single family houses: A house used as a residence by a single family is a domestic use, even if it’s a rental. “A HOUSE USED
SOLELY FOR A BUSINESS (SUCH AS DAY CARE CENTERS OR SOME OFFICE) IS A COMMERCIAL USE.” If the house is used as
5

a residence, but the resident uses part the house for a business (such as a beauty shop in the basement or a lawn mower
repair shop in the garage) the use is domestic.
I then reach out to the Idaho Department of Water Resources to help educate Mr. Hecht on why the usage should be
approved. A�er Mr. Hecht argued with them, and me, despite an email from IDWR saying the use was allowed. Mr. Hecht
sent me an email, sta�ng the following:
“The IDWR is the en�ty that is prohibi�ng the business (commercial) use of your property. I am emailing both IDWR and
IDEQ to try to get further informa�on, but you stated to me the use was to be short term rentals, which would be
commercial. The IDWR will need to provide you with further clarifica�on. If I get any further informa�on I will let you
know.”
I asked my contact at IDWR to provide Mr. Hecht with VERY plain language that’s easy to understand, so he can see that
my use is domes�c, and allowed. Blake from IDWR emailed Mr. Hecht the following:
“Island Park Water Company does have several water rights for different subdivisions. Regardless of them being a
coopera�ve or for-profit water company if they are providing water to single family residence it would be considered a
domes�c water use. As explained in that document that I provided, a home used as a residence by a single family is
considered a domes�c use, EVEN IF IT IS A RENTAL. (He capitalized and underlined “EVEN IF IT IS A RENTAL”.)
He con�nues, Cammi explained that she has a family cabin which she uses o�en. She told me that her residence is
rented out to help supplement mortgage costs. Based on her explana�on the use of water at Cammi’s residence in
Island Park would be considered a domes�c water use
I hope this helps.
Blake”
I further provided Mr. Hecht with addi�onal documenta�on from IDWR:
“ (b) Any other uses, if the total use does not exceed a diversion rate of four one-hundredths (0.04) cubic feet per
second and a diversion volume of twenty-five hundred (2,500) gallons per day.”
Clearly, a home that sleeps 4-6, that doesn’t water vegetation, would also fit under this rule, and be afforded
domestic use privileges.”
Further, I referenced Idaho HOUSE BILL NO. 216: “A short-term rental or vaca�on rental shall be classified as a
residen�al land use for zoning purposes subject to all zoning requirements.”
Nothing from Mr. Hecht or the PUC…no help or assistance in connec�ng. I emailed Mr. Hecht on May 13th, saying,
“That’s great news from Blake, what do we do from here?” Mr.Hecht didn’t respond.
I then engaged a water rights atorney, who was going to send a leter to the PUC and Island Park water. I emailed Mr.
Hecht the following:
“Hello Chris.

I’m wri�ng one final �me for assistance in connec�ng to IP Water.

Aside from the email from Blake at IDWR confirming my use is domes�c use, I engaged legal counsel today regarding
this refused domes�c use connec�on. He was able to cite several laws, including the HB 216 I familiarized you with
6

during our conversa�ons that grants me connec�on by defining my use as domes�c use.

If I’m unable to obtain a connec�on through Dorothy, or through you and the IUC’s assistance, I will be le� with no
choice but to further engage legal counsel to obtain that connec�on. I will name Dorothy McCarty, IP Water, and the IUC
in the lawsuit.

I certainly don’t want to cause li�ga�on, but feel like I, and the many others Dorothy is refusing service too, have been
le� with no choice.

Please let me know if you’re able to help further, or if the best course of ac�on is proceeding with legal counsel to
remedy this.

Thanks for your �me and aten�on to this mater, thus far.”
I didn’t receive a response, again, from Mr. Hecht.
I told Ms. McCarty, I was engaging legal counsel, and asked again, on May 23rd, for the applica�on. She responded, “Did
you check your mail? To speed things up, just send in your $200 and know I approved this.”
I mailed the $200 (without applica�on because it was never received). She told me I was approved and had to engage an
approved contractor, and the service line should be 1”, no larger, obviously forge�ng she’d originally told me I was only
approved for a ¾” line.
Dorothy requires you only use approved contractors, who charge an extreme amount. The contractor I hired charged me
his full fee of $3,500 to connect, despite the fact that the trench was dug, line was laid, and connec�on just had to be
made. He told me if I wanted it done, he was the only one approved and I had to pay it or he just wouldn’t come.
It’s ridiculous the monopoly she’s created with that as well.
A�er more than a year of batling, abuse, atempts at extra charges (reviews, fees, $1,100 connec�on), contractor costs,
and atorney fees, I was finally able to connect. The total cost to me to connect exceeded $7,000 due to numerous
contractor fees, atorney fees, etc.
Last year, my father purchased a small lot, where IP Water was listed on the lis�ng as the water provider. My dad asked
that I contact Dorothy on his behalf to try and obtain water. He’s elderly, and dealing with her would have proven to be
very unproduc�ve for him. I reached out to Dorothy in July reques�ng connec�on. I provided Dorothy with lot details,
per her request. She responded that the lot was a par�al lot and would therefore have no water from IP Water. It was
not a par�al lot, it was a sub lot, shown in the original plat for the subdivision. In addi�on, the adjoining sub lot, next
door, was connected to IP Water.
She told me she would check in to next week and said it would be extremely difficult to change water alloca�on and not
have a senior water rights holder protest it and that it would be complicated and expensive. I don’t know who she was
seeking approval from, as she would not disclose that.
I had my father reach out to Chris Hecht to report, yet another, refused connec�on.
I checked back with Dorothy weekly to find out if we could obtain water through her system. Each week being given a
different reason as to why she couldn’t answer yes, or no. One response during these communica�ons was “suggest he
needs to look seriously into drilling a private well. This remainder lot is excluded, but will do my best.” As she promised
to check-in with the unnamed and undisclosed group. I told her the lot was small and a well would have been impossible
due to sep�c placement for his home and those on adjoining lots. She told me, too bad, you’ll have a dry lot.”
7

As I con�nued to check in with Ms. McCarty for an answer, she blamed Eastern Idaho Public Health for approving a
sep�c on this lot without receiving her approval to do so. She blamed the real estate agents who lied and said the lot
was on the IP system, because they were liars and only worried about their commission. She blamed senior water rights
holders, and ‘big gun water rights atorneys,’ She blamed the county for issuing a building permit without her approval.
A neighbor offered to sell a connec�on to my father from his well, Dorothy said we couldn’t do that because she didn’t
authorize it.
In August, in response to another check in with Ms. McCarty, she told me it could be as much as $7,500 to annex this lot
to the water system.
In October, a�er checking in again, Ms. McCarty told me yet again that she can’t permit the lot. She said, “Like I
said..most likely spring..IF AT ALL. SORRY.”
Randomly, in February, I received a message from Ms. McCarty approving connec�on. I assume, as a result of the
inves�ga�on. Then on March 5th, I received the following text, copied and pasted: “Cammi I am s�ll approving this
connec�on. However will wait �ll weather permits. In reviewing your new account, Apparently I should have charged
you $1100+$200 for your previous connec�on. Don't worry- don't panic yet. Just le�ng you know I under charged the
connec�on fee. You paid $200 so let's wait before we do anything in new one. Also will require more than I required
be done on your connec�on. Don't worry about that either as I don't want to go back and have it dug up again. Call me
thanks.”
I called her, as requested. During the call she discussed frustra�on with one of the individuals who caused these ac�ons
against her, claimed she was in trouble for not sampling water and that she paid some people to do it and couldn’t
guarantee where they obtained the samples from, etc.
She also asked that I send an email to Chris Hecht le�ng him know she’d approved the connec�on. I did, and also made
him aware that she intended to charge $1,100 for it, when she was authorized to charge $200. She also asked that my
dad not send any money yet. I learned from Mr. Hecht that Ms. McCarty had sent several messages asking for a
connec�on rate increase. She had clearly hoped to be granted that rate increase before reques�ng connec�on fees.
Regardless, I submited a check on my father’s behalf with a $200 connec�on fee and $280 tariff, ci�ng the approved
PUC charges, which reflect the amount I remited. I highlighted the approved connec�on charge of $200, not $1,100, on
her tariff, as a friendly reminder.
Other items of note:
- There is never notice given, in advance, for disruption in service.
- We’ve experienced orange-brown water that tastes horrible during the winter and has caused sickness.
- I’ve seen leaks run for as long as two weeks before they’re addressed/repaired, causing a huge loss of water, damaging
roads, etc.
- Contacting Ms. McCarty, the only known officer, or employee, of IP Water can be difficult, even during an emergency,
with days between responses.
- Boil order notices are not communicated.
- There should be standardized connection and access instructions so as not to disrupt construction timelines.
- Approval should be granted, upon request and payment, for any residential property within the services area.
8

- Ms. McCarty’s bill for 2022 encouraged neighbors to report rentals, claiming it wasn’t allowed, the wells were drying up,
etc., and inferring those uses would be disconnected.
- Bill for 2023 asks that cabins be winterized, because water system is for summer use only, and restricts usage to 4
people.
The majority of this informa�on has been provided by reviewing texts between Ms. McCarty and I over the last 3 years,
and can be provided, if necessary.
I implore you to cause this water system to be operated by a professional u�lity, and remove Ms. McCarty. Engagement
with a public u�lity should never occur in this manner. “Water is a privilege, not a right.” So help me, if she says that one
more �me! We live in a first-world country. Public water, on an account paid in full, should be a right.
Thank you for your �me. I recognize the statement was lengthy. Imagine the frustra�on of the individual wri�ng it.
Cammi