Falls Church Wasn’t Victim In ‘Water War’
The December 26 – January 1 News-Press editorial notes that the water wars began when Fairfax County violated an invisible and unratified “turf line.” (Invisible and unratified – how binding or even noticeable can that non-agreement possibly be?) Then Falls Church lost every bit of litigation – in multiple courts, over several years – it initiated, deservedly landing “flat on its back.”
Mightn’t the message in all that simply be that the Little City was profoundly misguided in believing that it had in any fashion been victimized, and that it inflicted this expensive folly on itself out of pure wishful thinking? It’s of course good that a solution was reached acceptable – and apparently fair – to both sides. But it’s astonishing that after repeatedly being whacked legally, the City or its mouthpiece newspaper can muster outrage with a straight face. The epilogue, of course, is that a byproduct of the agreement is water rates declining for soon-to-be former customers of Falls Church Water – giving yet more evidence that Falls Church had no place in the water business.
Boosterism should be at least a little plausible.
Letters to the Editor may be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org 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.