Letter to the editor

The following letter to the editor appeared in the July 5, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

Please note that we are not responsible for the content of letters to the editor, and that we provide them to help inform you of the range of community opinion on the issues we are working with. Content of this letter is the sole responsibility of its author.

---

Water questions

Editor, Leader,

Finally! After years of bitter battle betwen the 78 households who petitioned for Marrowstone water and for the 400 who petitioned against it, the real issue has publicly surfaced.

With last month's Public Utility District application, there is no longer doubt as to the real driver for piped water. Wally Barclay, the golf course owner, will get a waterline installed from Fort Flagler to his golf course. The winners, of course, are Wally — who can finally green his greens without incurring more wrath from the Deparment of Ecology for sucking his neighbor's wells, and the PUD — which will have a sure buyer of four to five million gallons of water every summer.

The losers, of course, are the taxpayers who will fund the project and the Hadlock residents (and salmon) who are being robbed of that five million gallons. And certainly, there will be some households who will be disappointed that Marrowstone will continue to be the place they moved to, their marginal wells included. Perhaps instead of pointing their anger at neighbors who have opposed piped water, however, they will begin to see how badly they were used to manifest a millionaire's dream.

Janet Welch
Nordland

---

(M. Kelly Hays, president of the Jefferson County PUD 1 Board of Commissioners, responds: In August 2002, Marrowstone property owners petitioned PUD No. 1 to study a public water system. In May 2003, PUD Commissioners Sullivan, King and Roberts, based on documented interest and need, authorized the study of a Local Utility District, LUD No. 14, by resolution. By law, property owners can protest the decision and if over 50 percent protest, the LUD is canceled. In April 2004, after an insufficient number of property owners protested the project, the PUD unanimously approved LUD No. 14. Opponents then filed a lawsuit to stop the project. After the opponents had an opportunity to validate their claims in court, the judge ruled in favor of the PUD. PUD water will be provided to each property owner on an equal basis. The PUD promotes conservation but does not have the authority to regulate how water is used. That is the responsiblity of the Department of Ecology, whether from private wells or public water.)