water district vote

Aug. 28 Medford Tribune editorial:

Vote for water

Shady Cove needs a reliable supply;

we recommend a yes vote Sept. 17

Governments are formed in large part to provide for the common good. There are few common goods that are any more essential than a clean and adequate supply of drinking water. For that reason, above all others, voters in Shady Cove should support a proposal to create a city water district.

Shady Cove is split in two by the Rogue River, but its residents must rely on 900 private and shared wells to get their drinking water. In drought years, residents can find themselves without water even while they can hear the river rushing by. That poses health and fire risks, to say nothing of the cost and inconvenience suffered by those who have to have bottled water delivered to their homes.

Approving formation of the water district in the Sept. 17 vote-by-mail election would be a first step toward remedying that and toward eliminating the environmentally questionable practice of relying on groundwater wells.

Supporters of the district, including the City Council, say the next step, if the measure is approved, would be to consider a bond measure to finance a water system.

Opponents of the plan can take heart in the fact that even if the district is formed, the vote does not approve any public expenditure on a new water system. That would have to come in a later vote.

And some opponents can take even more solace in the fact that they will not be in the district. In a savvy move that seems to be a win-win, the district excluded five mobile home parks that have their own water supplies. The district supporters win because they eliminate a significant number of "no" votes, and the mobile home park residents and owners win because they will not be asked to pay if a new system is built.

That exclusion stems in part from the results of a 1999 vote on a proposed $11 million citywide water system in which concerns over costs led to a 492-391 defeat of the proposal. About 200 votes, most of them negative, came from mobile home park residents.

It makes sense to form the water district, even if only to provide the mechanism for examining the feasibility of a water system for Shady Cove. We hope that, if the district is approved, district board members would keep in mind the financial concerns of citizens and keep the costs as low as possible.

But the community needs a reliable source of water if it hopes to grow and prosper in the 21st century. We encourage voters in the proposed district to support Measure 15-29.

Sept. 6, 2002, Mail Tribune editorial

Guest opinion: . . Water district could be too costly......By JAMES C. COLLIER

The Shady Cove Taxpayers Association can and does concur with your first paragraph of the lead editorial in the Aug. 28 Mail Tribune. As someone has said, "The devil is in the details," and that is where we differ on the balance of the editorial.

Your analysis of how to accomplish the task of providing domestic water to a city that already has most of that water supply leaves many unanswered questions. A very important one being, how is the cost factor handled? "Trust us" is not the answer.

In your second and third paragraphs you raise several "bogeymen" that have little or nothing to do with the issue of providing domestic water. Trying to scare the people of Shady Cove is not productive. We like to deal with facts and reality.

Contrary to your statements in paragraphs four and five, the vote to form this water district is a vote to provide almost unlimited funding without additional voting by our citizens. The board of commissioners would have the authority to set fees and charges, borrow money, create a revenue bond and much more. All without further vote of the people.

The only vote required by law is for a general obligation bond. With a board having that broad authority, do you think they would allow a vote that might go against them?

Your next paragraph is false. While the residents of the five mobile home parks are not allowed to vote on the matter, at least one park owner has, in writing, notified his 48 tenant homes that he will annex into the district and they will have to pay.

How is that "a win" for them? What is to keep the other park owners from doing the same thing? This is part of the "details." Those citizens don’t get to vote but do get to pay. Some "win"!

In paragraph seven you claim "about 200 votes, most of them negative, came from mobile home park residents." How do you know this "fact"? Did you watch them vote, or perhaps you did the count of past secret ballots.

We are tempted to agree with paragraph eight. We believe a lot more consideration should be given to other alternatives to the proposal before forming a district.

The Upper Rogue Water and Power Committee offered one such alternative but the Shady Cove City Council prevented the county commissioners from considering it.

Two of the Shady Cove council members were on the committee sponsoring the Shady Cove Water District. It was impossible to obtain council permission for the county to consider any other proposal.

Under state law, the Shady Cove Council can block anyone or anything not to its liking. After all, their vote "disenfranchised" the mobile home park residents, and the county commissioners, who could have changed that, went along with the city. The park residents will get to vote on two of the commissioners this November.

The Shady Cove Taxpayers Association would like to support a water project for our citizens that does not grant limitless access into our, not your, wallets.

You and the other proponents keep saying that this is a "free" election. If that is true, how do you explain ORS 264.300, which automatically allows some $33,750 in taxes each year to this proposed district? Doesn’t sound like "free" now, does it? That is just for starters!

James C. Collier is chairman of the Shady Cove Taxpayers Association.