Commissioners send 'message' to cities on water line extensions - October 20, 1998

By David Wilkins Daily World Writer, The Aberdeen Daily World ,

MONTESANO - The county commissioners voted Monday to make it easier on county residents to get water to their property without paying the often high cost of connecting to city water services.

County Public Works Director Mike Daniels spelled it out.

"We shouldn't be asking citizens who want to build one house to run 1,000 or 2,000 feet of eight-inch water main, and then turn around and ask those people to pay connection fees and double rates because they live outside the city limits," Daniels said.

Montesano planner Mike Wincewicz defended the ordinance, which was passed by the county in 1994 with the intention of standardizing drinking water service around the county and ensuring a safer public water supply.

"The only way to build a viable water supply system is if everyone participates," Wincewicz told the commissioners.

Commissioner Bob Paylor was clearly displeased by what he was hearing.

"Personally, it sounds like blackmail to me," Paylor said. "I think we have to respond to the needs of people who just want to develop a piece of property and have to spend some enormous amount of money. It's just not fair."

The vote was 2-0 in favor of the amendment, with Dick Dixon siding with Paylor and Commissioner Bob Beerbower abstaining. He said members of his family were involved in one of the many water-rights disputes surrounding the cities in the East County.

Angry county citizens complained to the commission that the cities have been using access to potable water as a "hammer" to deny them their rights.

One of those citizens, Jim Todd, owns a 7.75-acre lot outside Elma with one house on it. He wanted to divide the lot into three parts, with the aim of selling one, putting a manufactured home on one and giving the existing house to his son.

The problem was that even though Todd lives outside the Elma city limits, his property is still within Elma City Water's "service area."

Under the existing ordinance, No. 202, Todd was required to hook up to Elma city water, even though percolation tests on his property showed that he could easily drill a well that would have given his three lots an abundant water supply.

"Ever since Ordinance 202 went into effect, Elma has had a stranglehold on county residents," said Todd. "(Elma city engineering consultant) Mike Wolfe told me that I had no rights, that I had lost them when Elma went with the ordinance."

Reached in Elma today, Wolfe said that Todd was taking his statement out of context.

"The language in the agreement states that he agrees not to protest the annexation if he accepts city water," Wolfe said. "That would be the only right he would give up, if any."

A four-inch Elma water line runs down the street in front of his lot, but according to Todd, Elma officials told him that in order to add the manufactured home to the property, he would have to upgrade that water line for them. To an eight-inch line. With fire hydrants.

"At one time, that was discussed, but that was never a written requirement," said Wolfe. "The city is responsible for the water main at the property line. I'm afraid Mr. Todd has taken this situation to an extreme, to get what he wants out of it."

The upgrade would have cost Todd $41,000, which he said is more than the parcel he had planned to sell was worth, not to mention more than $30,000 over the price of drilling a well. And even after upgrading the line at his own expense, Todd said he was told he would still have to pay a connection fee.

"It's as if you went down to (auto dealer) Stormy Glick's, and asked him if you could lease a car," Todd told the commissioners. "And Stormy said, 'Sure, buy the car for me first and then I'll lease it to you.' "

To add insult to injury, Todd said he was also told he would have to sign an agreement that stated he would not fight annexation if the city at some point decided to extend the city limits to include his property, or he wouldn't be allowed to hook up to the water line he was going to have to build himself.

Under the existing ordinance, his refusal to sign would have been considered a failure to meet one of the conditions of service, rather than an actual refusal of service, and he would have been left with no way to get water to his property.

Monday's amendment to the ordinance included specific language that notes that forcing residents to sign such annexation agreements is inappropriate. It also recognizes the refusal to sign as a refusal of service on the part of the city water system - allowing the citizen to appeal to the county for a permit to drill a well.

Jim Starks of the Elma Public Works Department also defended the ordinance. "We're experiencing some growing pains in Elma," said Starks. "This is just one of them. I think we need to look long and hard at this before we take any action."

Al Adolphsen, who has been fighting Elma over this issue for 15 months, summed it up for the commissioners.

"Families are being forced into the cities by these service agreements, and charged large amounts of money," he said. "I don't think the county's intention was to create economic hardship for these families. I think the intention was to get potable water into homes."