Letters to the Editor: July 28 – August 3, 2011

July 28, 2011 2:00 PM0 comments
Suspects Demand For ‘Atonement’ From Fairfax Users

Editor,

In reference to last week’s editorial, I would like to clarify some items for you. I doubt that the opposition of the rate increase questions your need to increase the revenue to the water system for necessary upkeep. However, they may feel that this should come from the general fund as an atonement (payback) for the water systems illegal support to the general fund over multiple years. Further, the fact that other jurisdictions do it does not make it OK. The Virginia Supreme Court has spoken Relative to the fact that it may cost Fairfax Water customers is not relevant.

When Fairfax Water was established by the Board of Supervisors in the early 1950″s their instructions were: “Acquire all the water systems in Fairfax County (26 at the time) and form one integrated water system with uniform rates” Fairfax Water has proceeded to do so without regard to whether or not systems were economically advantageous. Fairfax Water is an Authority and under The Authority’s Act is prohibited from giving Fairfax County any funds. Therefore, who would receive any return on investment if they charged it. Fairfax Water System has been rated by AWWA as one of the top ten water systems in the nation.

Finally, if the water system is not capable of earning anything, why would Falls Church want to retain it? All the customers in and out of the City would financially benefit if it was turned over to Fairfax Water.

Fred Griffith

Via the Internet

 


Letters to the Editor may be submitted to letters@fcnp.com or via our online form here. Letters should be limited to 350 words and may be edited for content, clarity and length. To view the FCNP’s letter and submission policy, please click here.

 

Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonTwitter Icontwitter follow buttonGoogle+Google+