EDITOR:
I've exchanged e-mails recently with Douglas County Manager Michael Brown regarding my concerns about the proposed consolidation of eight water districts under county management. The county has agreed to manage these water districts even though some have severe problems left behind by developers and contractors. These problems either escaped the county's inspectors or were willingly accepted for unknown reasons.
In his response, Mr. Brown explained that tax money also subsidizes these water district operations, that the ratepayers in problem districts did not cause the problems, that aging and inadequate infrastructure problems must be addressed, and that consolidation is a worthy proposal for addressing the current and future needs of the entire community.
But as Jack Van Dien has pointed out, these observations are irrelevant to the central issue: The advantages of consolidation to the ratepayers have still not been spelled out. Except, I speculate, that it rescues county officials from having to pursue those entities that caused the problems or revisiting the original decision to take on the management of problem districts.
Stuart Posselt has made two important points in a prior letter: One, that the problem-district ratepayers are for the most part located in very affluent areas; consolidation would actually drop their rates at the expense of less-affluent ratepayers. Two, that Mr. Brown's wish to address the current and future needs of the community might augur for consolidation if it were a partnership of equals.
Mr. Brown asserts that "[A]ll of the county's water systems are independent and self-sufficient."
But consolidating water districts, without first correcting the deficiencies of the problem districts, would be a shotgun marriage of unequals. Mr. Van Dien has said that one of the problem districts, Jobs Peak, has filed suit against the parties they feel were responsible for their problems. This would be the obvious and proper remedy for the other problem districts to pursue.
Consolidation means socializing the deficiencies of some districts among all water district ratepayers under county management. Non-problem district ratepayers should not have to pay extra for problems not of their making.
By this logic, water district ratepayers could be called on to make up a shortfall in any county department. If some ratepayers can have their rates hiked simply because it is convenient for county officials to do so, then water district rate revenues become a slush fund rather than payment for services rendered.
Creating a common rate structure that mixes problem and non-problem districts merely because they all happen to be managed by Douglas County is - to use Mark Steyn's example - like making brownies with half brownie mix and half dog excrement. No matter how you bake it, the latter ingredient will dominate the resulting product. Whatever remedy the affluent ratepayers in the problem districts have, it does not lay in the pockets of non-problem district ratepayers.
Lynn Muzzy
Minden
