Turns out the
waterless Bill Sexton was right: as he reported to the Chesterton Utility
Service Board at its meeting Monday night, frigid November temperatures have
frozen--at least twice--the hose which is currently being used to flow water
from a neighbor’s residence to his, after an ongoing large-scale de-watering
project at the wastewater treatment plant earlier this fall left the well
serving Sexton’s rented house dry and useless.
Chesterton
officials, for their part, grudgingly agreed to heat-tape the spigot but are
insistent that, should the hose freeze again, it’s not their fault but
Sexton’s for the way he’s using the hose or maybe--in some unspecified
way--the “house’s” fault.
Meanwhile, those
same officials were at pains to explain that, in the event of the well’s not
recharging after the de-watering has ceased, irregularities or
insufficiencies in the well as it was originally dug could--under the 1985
Water Rights: Emergency Regulation Statute, I.C. 14-25-4 to be exact--exempt
the Utility from any obligation ever to provide permanent relief to the
well’s owner.
In fact, Sexton is
not the only Porter resident in the 300 block of Waverly Road served by a
well rendered useless--temporarily, it is hoped--by the de-watering project
at the treatment plant. Linda Hart is another. Both appeared before the
Service Board at its October meeting to ask when the de-watering, part of a
federally mandated construction project, will be done.
At the time Sexton
and Hart were told that de-watering would continue for some weeks more. In
the meantime the Utility was providing them with bottled water for drinking
and cooking and--by means of the hose--with non-potable water for washing
and cleaning. And Utility Superintendent Terry Atherton specifically wanted
Sexton and Hart to know that--under I.C. 14-25-4--the Utility was not only
meeting its legal obligations to them but conceivably “going a little bit
beyond what we have to do.”
That’s fine, Sexton
said. But what if the hose freezes when it gets cold?
Against that
possibility the Service Board instructed the Utility to insulate the hose.
That’s fine, Sexton
said. But what if the well doesn’t recharge when the de-watering ends?
In that case,
Service Board President Larry Brandt said, a determination will have to be
made that the wells were constructed in accordance with Nonrule Policy
Document Information Bulletin No. 26 (1986 through 1990) or otherwise with
Rule 312 IAC 12 (1991 to present).
Because if they
weren’t--and Brandt hinted vaguely that one of them may not be--then the
Utility is under no obligation to provide the well’s owner “timely and
reasonable compensation.”
All of that, from
the Service Board’s previous meeting, on Oct. 20.
Monday’s Meeting
Sexton appeared
before the Service Board at Monday’s meeting accompanied by an attorney,
Cynthia Tilden.
Tilden began by
asking when the de-watering will end.
Probably before
Thanksgiving, Brandt said.
Because, Tilden
noted, the hose serving Sexton’s residence has frozen, twice. “Are there any
options to help these people with their water?”
Brandt expressed
the belief that the Service Board had previously ordered the hose to be
insulated.
“The insulation is
insufficient,” Sexton replied.
“What do you want
us to do?” Brandt asked.
“I just want
working water,” Sexton said.
Atherton
recommended just leaving the water running.
It was left
running, at half strength, Sexton said.
Brandt expressed
incredulity. “Water does not freeze” when left to run like that, he said.
And yet it did,
Tilden said. “Is there anything else that can be done?”
At that point
Service Board Member Jim Raffin articulated an obvious point. “If it’s
freezing up, we need to do something.”
The Service Board
accordingly instructed the Utility to heat-tape the spigot itself.
Raffin, clearly
frustrated, pressed Atherton. “We need to get a firm date when the
de-watering will be done.
Still, as Atherton
was ready to observe, whenever the de-watering’s done, it will yet take two
to three weeks according to a DNR projection for the ground water table to
rise enough to recharge the wells.
Yes, about the DNR:
Tilden said she was under the impression that the Utility was citing some
DNR staffer to the effect that the well serving Sexton’s rented house wasn’t
dug properly.
Atherton was glad
to confirm Tilden’s impression and--referrng to I.C. 14-25-4--said that the
well in question must “meet certain criteria” in order for the Utility to be
responsible for its recharging--or for remedying its failure to
recharge--and “the DNR says it doesn’t.”
What’s wrong with
the well? Tilden wanted to know.
“Why don’t you call
(the DNR) and ask?” Atherton snapped.
“My problem is that
I don’t like the idea that there’s correspondence going back and forth that
there’s something wrong with the well,” Tilden said. “Starting from that
premise is pretty hostile.”
“What do you want
us to do that we’re not doing?” Brandt asked Tilden.
Tilden’s reply was
simple enough: Bill Sexton “wants running water.”
“If the hose
continues to freeze, then it’s the house, not the hose,” Brandt responded.
“We’re providing water like we’re supposed to.”
“Who should we
contact if it’s not working properly?” Tilden wondered.
“Mr. Atherton,”
Brandt replied.
So ended the
discussion.
Member Scot McCord,
however, took a moment at the end of the meeting to suggest that the real
issue may not be I.C. 14-25-4 but the fact that a direct action of the
Utility has, for the moment at least, severely inconvenienced two Porter
residents. “I just want to take care of the people without water,” he said.
McCord then issued
a warning. “It would be a nightmare if we ran into some legal problem,” he
said. “The only people who’d get rich would be the lawyers.”
Member John
Schnadenberg promptly voiced his agreement with McCord.