Call me irresponsible....at least in the Pocahontas Times

Call me irresponsible - call me unreliable
Throw in undependable too
Do my foolish alibis bore you
Well I'm not too clever - I just adore you

Call me unpredictable - tell me I'm impractical
Rainbows I'm inclined to pursue
Call me irresponsible - yes I'm unreliable
But it's undeniably true - I'm irresponsibly mad for you

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Pocahontas Times sees fit to call the recent actions of the County Commission "at best naive, and at worst, irresponsible" concerning the letter written to the IJDC to halt funding for the time being for the regional sewer plant at Slatyfork/Snowshoe.

In reply to the innuendo and statements in this Editorial, no one on the County Commission is adverse to the interests of Snowshoe nor underestimates the value of Snowshoe to our County. No Commissioner "rails against the resort". No Commissioner underestimates the economic and tax benefits of Snowshoe. And no Commissioner opposes the sewer infrastructure needs of Snowshoe or the surrounding Slatyfork community. Indeed, I have often applauded the Snowshoe Career Center in Marlinton with its innovative programs and new thinking and strategies. I always notice the ever-present and positive involvement of Snowshoe in our community. I sit on a board funded entirely by hotel/motel tax. Our hospital and fire departments depend on that yearly contribution. Snowshoe is one of the County's best hopes for a sustaining "green" economy.

What is really wrong with the Editorial is that it misunderstands the intent of the Commission. The Snowshoe Sewer has been taken over lock, stock and barrel by the PSD. The Commission, along with many others, does not believe that a big regional and costly sewage treatment plant, which can easily endanger the ground water and Elk River, is the right solution to meet the obligations of the takeover. But for the past several years, the PSD and Thrasher Engineering have turned a deaf ear to these concerns and continue to push ahead for a huge, unneeded and costly project. So in order to stop the car, the Commission voted to remove the gas; being the IJDC grant money. That stops the project, it does not mean there can not be a project in the future. It does not mean there can not be other later funding for a project(s) which meet real needs not wild and exaggerated forecasts of need.

The statement in this Editorial that without a huge regional sewage treatment plant endangering the environment somehow Snowshoe will become a ghost town and we will have "empty businesses" and nearly every business here will suffer is preposterous! The Snowshoe demands for waste water treatment can be efficiently met with retrofitting and or less costly additions to the existing infrastructure already there. Waste Water treatment for areas near Snowshoe can be addressed with cluster treatment plants installed as needed. Cost, efficiency and environmental concerns are necessary parts of the future equation for infrastructure. Stopping the project must not be equated, as in this Editorial, with stopping Snowshoe; rather it is stopping a runaway PSD and allowing the entire community to participate in a regional solution.

Also, I do not recall that when the County Commission of several years ago was voting to take the Sharp Farm the Times called those three Commissioners "irresponsible" for not listening to the will of the people.

Ski resorts in the West utilize small recirculating systems and discharge in a subsurface drip, the treatment and purification is excellent. In Alaska, which has some of the toughest environmental standards utilize these systems. These systems can be placed in decentralized units thus eliminating a lot of costly conveyance piping and these systems are almost maintenance free using no chemicals. These systems have been found to be more cost effective than large centralized systems while doing a better job of treatment. The only problem engineering firms do not get a big check because most manufactures do that as part of the sale.

Wow! I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Norman Alderman. But agree I do. I do feel you & David made the right move. I still think the retrofit of SS's system into a membrane system is the way to go for them.
As for in the valley, each developer should figure out the cost for putting in his or her own system & devide it up among all houses to be built & add to price of home. That's sort of the way it's done here where I live. When you buy your home you also have a bond & this covers the price of putting in the infrastructure. You can either pay the bond off or make the payments with your mortgage. No mortgage, make payments on the bond alone.
The current property owners at SS should not have to pay for putting in the sewer system for private developers off the mtn.

I note the concern raised that "Every day you put off this project, the costs go up". Now on the surface, this appears to be a true proposition. However, it is only true as a bland statement regarding generalized inflation that is inevitable. Add specific elements such as these and see if the statement is still true: 1. Build a less expensive more efficient system in the future; 2. Spread the costs more efficiently among big developers and not so heavily upon users; 3. Consider that costs are not just in terms of money to build a system but cost as impact to the environment which can be lessened with the right system.

Martin,
The Valley developer would have to front the money until he sells the property, then the cost for putting in infrastructure is added into the cost of the properties.

This whole valley development push is a joke to be played on the rate payers. I attended a meeting where Thrasher engineering stated that valley development would eventually serve hundreds of people in Slaty Fork Farms and Slaty Ridge. There are nowhere close to that many residents in those developments today and more importantly there was no mention of how sewage lines would ever be run into those developments. Slaty Ridge homeowners published objections to the "valley project", citing no discernable benefit for them. There would have to be many miles of lines at significant costs, considering the terrain.

What the valley development is really intended to serve are the areas right along the highway. Ike Morris, MIke Ross, Snowshoe, and a few other landholders along the highway would benefit.

The CC is on the right path, wanting to address the Snowshoe area first. This is responsible local government. Too bad the Pocahontas Times can't comprehend.

Morris owns in and around the quarry and Ross recently bought land along 219 from none other than Scott Millican, your PSD representative, within the past year or two.

What does the Pocahontas Times say about Millican selling to Mike Ross? Do you think we will see any righteious indignation from Pam Pritt on that one?

Thanks Joe,
Humph, I learned something new. I didn't know that Scott Millican owned property along 219.
Thanks for the info.

Martin,

The Times opinion piece is lacking analysis, objectivity and facts. It was a hatchet job driven by an agenda from parts unknown. I read it twice. If I were a casual observer I would have learned nothing from the piece except that the Times obviously supports expansive public service without concern for engineering feasability or public finance. If I recall correctly they were not all that concerned about eminent domain powers in a previous battle either.

Linda, those of us who are working to preserve the Elk River Watershed were very concerned about potential conflicts of interest involving Mr. Millican relative to property he owned in the proposed sewage service area. Research has shown that he sold it to the individuals identified previously. Nevertheless, we remain concerned about conflicts and vigilent for the river's preservation.

I recall(from a recent edition of Commissioner's Corner on WVMR) that the term of one member of the PSD ends in June. Whose term is expiring?

Thank you for the reply.