Letter to West Virginia Public Service Commission - Robert Forrest - July 22, 2008

The following letter was sent to the West Virginia Public Service Commission by Snowshoe homeowner Robert Forrest after he attended the July 16 Pocahontas PSD Meeting at Snowshoe's Allegheny Lodge last week.

Mr. Forrest's concerns and observations reflects those of the growing group of folks who are seeking a better solution to a 1.5 millon gallon per day regional sewage treatment plant on the Elk River.

++++++++++++++
Lynchburg, VA 24501

July 22, 2008
Sandra Squire
Executive Secretary
Public Service Commission
PO Box 812
Charleston, WV 25323

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

Re: Case No. 05-0103-PWD-CN
Pocahontas County Public Service District
Case No. 07-1 890-WS-PSD-C
Snowshoe Property Owners Council
Snowshoe Water and Sewer, Inc. and
Pocahontas County Public Service District

On Wednesday evening, July 16, I had the opportunity to attend a PSD meeting held at Alleghany Lodge at Snowshoe, WV. Ostensibly, the purpose of the meeting was to give interested parties, particularly Homeowners on Snowshoe Mountain, the opportunity to comment on the proceedings. About 75 people attended, the majority of which appeared to be Snowshoe Homeowners.

To reiterate some of the background conditions, the proposed regional sewage system is to serve the community of some 1850 homes and condominiums at the top of Snowshoe Mountain, and to provide roughly 50 to 100 home and property owners and several businesses in the Slatyfork valley along US 219 (south, some 2000 vertical feet lower and more than 4 miles by road from the Snowshoe community). The overwhelming majority of the project will be funded by the 1850 homeowners at the top of Snowshoe Mountain.

At the meeting, the PSD stated repeatedly that the only reason for the massive size of the project, and the proposed location of the plant in the valley below is to support future development at the base of the mountain, along the valley. The PSD also stated that without the majority of the funding coming from the 1850 mountaintop Snowshoe rate-payers, the project could not be realistically funded.

Previously, a number of interested parties (Homeowners via the Snowshoe Property Owners Council, or SPOC; Elk Headwaters Watershed Association, and others) had requested that serious consideration be given to a decentralized “cluster” system, wherein a plant would be constructed at the Snowshoe vicinity (in proximity to the 1850 primary rate payers) and funded by those primary rate payers, and one or more additional “cluster” plants would be located in the valley, in proximity to the 100 potential rate payers, and also the land to be developed, to be funded by those rate payers. This approach appears to have the following advantages:

1. Overall costs would be lower, since there would be no need for miles of additional sewage lines transporting sewage long distances,
2. Environmental impact would be considerably less, both in risk and in actual effect, since the Snowshoe plant would not be built on a flood plain,
3. Costs would be fairly allocated on the basis of actual use, rather than having the additional capacity for the valley funded by the current rate payers on the mountain,
4. Developers and large landowners in the valley would pay their fair share as they proceeded with their development.

The alternative would be that the valley developers and landowners would receive a “windfall” improvement in property values, at the expense of the mountaintop owners.

The meeting was a disappointment, and demonstrated a callous indifference on the part of the PSD to the needs and desires of the primary rate payers who will be funding the project. The PSD’s engineer, Mr. Ken Moran of Thrasher Engineering, was unprepared to provide any analysis of a comparison of the two approaches, with the PSD concurring that this technical comparison not needed and has little value. The PSD allowed about half the people signed up to speak the opportunity to speak, and then suddenly and without warning terminated the meeting. Presumably the decision was already made when the meeting started: Scott Milliken, who chaired the meeting, did not respond at all when asked specifically if their minds were made up prior to the meeting. It was apparent that the only reason for the meeting was to have it on record that the meeting was convened.

Snowshoe Homeowners are in favor of renovation of their sewage system, and are willing to fund that renovation. We are not in favor of being the majority funding source for a system having a capacity many times that required for our homes on the mountaintop. We should not be required to pay for capacity for future development elsewhere: that should be paid for by the people who will benefit from that additional capacity. We realize that as out-of-state investors we count little inWest Virginia’s politics, but we should have a say: we have committed our money to making West Virginia succeed, and we should not be dismissed summarily simply because our home of record is elsewhere.

Snowshoe Homeowners are concerned about our environment. To have a valid treatment approach that has been proven elsewhere (Canaan Valley) summarily dismissed (despite the fact that the PSD’s engineer conceded that the effluent from a membrane cluster plant has substantially less environmental effect than that proposed) is offensive to us and should be offensive to all West Virginians as well. To implement a massive regional plant in an environmentally delicate location, with a substantial risk of damage and destruction to a significant wildlife and wild-stream attraction seems ill advised, particularly when there are alternatives available.

The PSD appears to have their “marching orders” from elsewhere, presumably from people aligned with the beneficiaries of a regional system. Indeed, at least one of the PSD members has land in the affected area, and by virtue of being a real estate agent has quite a bit to gain should the single regional plant be implemented. This project does not appear to be governed by technical and economic considerations; it appears instead to be governed by political motivation, driven by people who have clear conflicts of interest.

I cannot see the current PSD providing an impartial analysis and assessment to this project. They appear to be very closely aligned with the large property owners with holdings in the valley below. I therefore suggest that it would be much more fair if a second PSD was constituted, one that focused on the mountaintop community â?? their needs and requirements, and allow the current PSD to focus on the requirements of the valley below.

I note that Snowshoe Mountain Resort Inc., the company that operates the resort facilities at Snowshoe, is totally independent of the Snowshoe homeowners. They have their own agenda and should not be considered as speaking for the homeowners.

Respectfully Submitted:

Robert T. Forrest, PE (West Virginia)
Homeowner at Snowshoe
rtfvlfski@lynchburg.net