Fort Peck Rural County Water District Update

Dear Editor,

The Fort Peck Rural County Water District Board continues to try to get away with the most egregious actions – making up their own rules as they go along. You decide for yourselves:

Lack of transparency regarding Kittleson Ridge Subdivision continues:

Thanks to a District customer, a copy of the December 2023 DEQ's Certificate of Subdivision Approval for Kittleson Ridge Subdivision was finally provided to the Board, nearly a year after it was issued. The fact that Board president (the owner of Kittleson Ridge Subdivision) never shared the report himself is concerning. The report includes this important restriction: using water from the public water supply for watering lawns/irrigation is "strictly prohibited" in the Kittleson Ridge Subdivision. (I verified this with the DEQ.) Since other District subdivisions do not have this restriction, it is important information for the Board and water operator to review and consider. After all, they are the ones that will be ultimately tasked with ensuring the regulation is enforced.

Due to a customer's request, it was also discovered that Mr. Kittleson never submitted the required Subdivision Application and $500 fee for Kittleson Ridge Subdivision – a process that began in November 2021. Therefore, the Board has never officially reviewed and approved Kittleson's water services application for his subdivision.

As a result, "Retroactive approval of application/tapping permit for introduction of water service to land for Kittleson Ridge subdivision" was on November's Board meeting agenda. Ms. Parpart, who presided over the meeting, requested a motion from the Board to backdate Kittleson's subdivision approval to July 11, 2022! That is the date Parpart thought it would have likely been approved by the Board (if Kittleson had actually submitted his Application).

To me, backdating an approval is falsifying a public record. Attorney, David Irving, who was sitting at the Board's table, offered no input. After concerns were raised by a member of the public, the motion was withdrawn and the action tabled.

Why did this discussion even take place in Mr. Kittleson's absence?

Kittleson Ridge Final Inspection Report was also on November's agenda. Sadly, there was no input from the District's water operator, who is the person ultimately responsible for maintaining water quality. He did attend the final inspection (per the Rules & Regs) but was not invited to the Board meeting or asked to be on the agenda.

This kind of stuff can only happen when Board members fail to get involved and do not assure that processes are being followed.

Regarding Official Meeting Minutes:

The Board's official meeting minutes now routinely refer to the public's comment as "interruptions" (even when a hand is raised and the presiding officer offers the floor). Board members do not seem to realize that this is a poor reflection on them. It's not only immature but, completely unprofessional. It's also indicative of just how little the Board "values" public comment.

Honestly, wouldn't it be easier to just do the right thing?

In the days ahead, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Kittleson voluntarily resigns or is asked to resign from the Board prior to signing an Assessment and Improvements Guarantee Agreement with the Water District. (MT states that "public officers may not be interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity.") We will see if the Board responsibly protects the best interests of the Water District by ensuring that the Agreement includes the standard provisions that are in its other Subdivision Agreements.

Sincerely,

Mary Kaercher

Fort Peck, Mont.