Published in the Asbury Park Press
BY JEAN MIKLE
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
UNITED WATER TOMS RIVER CASE
TOMS RIVER — United Water Toms River's franchise should be revoked because the company's negligent conduct has endangered the public health and safety of Dover Township residents, the township contends in a petition expected to be filed today with the state Board of Public Utilities.
The eight-page petition asks the BPU to order the appointment of an independent receiver to operate the water company until the board decides on the franchise revocation.
This is the third time since 1991 that Dover has filed a petition with the BPU questioning the adequacy of the company's water service. Previous petitions asked the BPU to force the company to drill new wells or construct new storage facilities.
But this time, the object is to force the utility out of Dover.
It is being filed less than a month after township officials learned that United Water had violated state law by failing to report to the state or to residents seven instances of elevated radiation levels in its system discovered during routine testing in 2005.
"This is something that has been going on for an extremely long period of time," council President Gregory P. McGuckin said. "There is a complete lack on their part of serving the community in an appropriate manner."
Residents concur
Several residents who spoke at Tuesday's Township Council meeting expressed anger at the water company and urged action.
Stefany Gesser of Cedar Grove Road, a member of the Citizens Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster, said if the governing body works with the citizens committee, they will present a powerful force confronting the water company.
"All together, just think how powerful we can be," Gesser said.
Peddie Street resident Angelo DiGiovanni said he believes that some private wells in his East Dover neighborhood supply cleaner water than that provided by United and that the utility should be shut down.
United Water spokesman Richard Henning said the company is discouraged that the township has decided to take legal action instead of continuing a dialogue.
"I think what's perhaps most disheartening about this petition is that these issues were examined recently by the board," Henning said, referring to a BPU ruling last year that said the company did have a valid franchise to operate in Dover.
"The franchise issue was finally resolved last year," he said "To go back and revisit this, especially at this moment, is not only a waste of the Dover taxpayers' money but also taking away valuable resources from our ratepayers as well."
The BPU's 2005 decision was made in response to Dover's 1997 petition against the water company, which questioned the adequacy and safety of United's water service as well as the validity of the company's franchise to operate here.
That petition noted that the township could find no record of a franchise extension after 1947 for Toms River Water Co., which was purchased by United Water Resources in 1994.
The petition the Township Council voted to file following a lengthy executive session does not question the validity of the company's franchise but instead argues that United's own failures to provide adequate and safe service warrants revocation.
Mayor Paul C. Brush said he and council members are in agreement that filing the petition is the best way to deal with the town's long list of complaints.
"We have to show the people in town that we mean business and that we're just not giving them lip service from the dais," Brush said. "We really want to hold the water company accountable."
If franchise is revoked
Brush and McGuckin said the township would consider several options should the BPU agree to revoke United Water's franchise, including purchasing and taking over the water company or seeking another operator.
Both Brush and McGuckin said the township may seek compensation from the water company for potential lost revenue caused by a state Department of Environmental Protection ban on water connections that has halted almost all new construction here.
The DEP prohibited new connections in September because United Water had exceeded its state water allocation limit in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
"This is not the only legal action that the township is contemplating," McGuckin said.
Among the nine counts in the township's petition is Dover's contention that water company officials knowingly misrepresented their attempts to address the allocation issue during meetings held with township officials in July 2005.
The petition says those misrepresentations constitute fraud against Dover and United Water ratepayers, and breach the company's 1897 franchise agreement.
Henning said company officials have never purposely omitted any information or made misrepresentations to the township.
He pointed out that United is conducting an internal investigation to determine why the radiation test results were not properly reported to the DEP and why the public was not notified, as required by state law.
"In no way, shape or form have we ever attempted to misrepresent or omit any information to Dover Township or in any attempt to deceive our customers," Henning said.
"As a matter of fact, United Water, over many years, has gone to great lengths, and will continue to go to great lengths, to be very open and honest with our customers."
Published in the Asbury Park Press 03/2/06
|
