Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Bill Sexton still waterless; jerry rigged hose freezes; Utility accepts no blame

Back To Front Page

 

By KEVIN NEVERS

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.

 

 

 

Posted 11/18/2014

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search