To L.J. Ross of Utopia, TX: I am a native Texan and lived there most of my life. We came to Oregon and specifically to Hood River in 2001 for our first trip. Came back and visited over 10 times and moved here in 2013. Heaven will have to be really special to improve on this area. Yes, there might be an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, etc. You might experience a tornado, flash flooding, or horrendous heat in Texas also. We are specks on a big hot rock with a thin crust. Just try to enjoy wherever you are, but we will stay here. The following emergency plan comes from a T-shirt I bought on the coast this weekend. It applies to you in Texas, and anyone else facing natural peril; 1) Grab the beer!, 2) Run like hell!
Posted 14 July 2014, 8:45 a.m.
I agree with Herb Freeland’s April 2nd letter. During last year’s FID board meetings which were attended by interested, residential representatives, we learned we had been “subsidized” for years. No logical explanation was given of the subsidy. If the residential users were a financial burden to the system, why were we originally allowed into FID in an “unfair” basis? The “F” in FID is for “Farmers” and it is primarily for the benefit of our agricultural friends and neighbors. I believe the intent of the regulation FID used is to be applied per acre of use. Despite the size of one’s lot, the current implementation subjects each covered homeowner to an account fee for one acre. The end result, as reflected by Mr. Freeland, is an account fee equivalent to 2,150% of the water fee.
ORS 545.381(1) states "each acre of irrigable land in the district shall be assessed and required to pay the same amount". ORS 545.381(3) states "For operation, maintenance, and drainage, each irrigable acre in the district shall be assessed the same..." All charges are required to be based on lot size - there is no provision in this ORS for Farmers Irrigation to charge a fee that is not based on lot size.
I call upon the appropriate city, county or state regulatory entity to confirm the propriety and conformity to regulation, of this increase.
As a residential user, the water I received from FID was an exceptional value. I am not averse to my water fee being raised from $9.30 /yr to 2-5 times this amount, in consideration of the agricultural users. I believe my account fee should be apportioned to the percentage of one acre my lot occupies as per county records. I have already remitted my payment for this year’s levy. I am hopeful that I and all similarly impacted residents will receive a rebate for this account fee overcharge. If not, I am sure FID will guarantee me adequate water pressure for my needs consistent with all other users throughout the season.
Posted 7 April 2014, 4:54 p.m.
The suggestion to assist in the cleanup to allow delivery of mail is very interesting. Maybe the old phrase "Neither rain nor snow, will deter delivery of your mail" no longer applies. I cleared the area in front of my neighbor's mailbox to allow delivery of her mail. She has some health issues, and it would not have been possible for her to perform this herself. An hour after I cleared the area, the snowplow came down our street and pushed melted snow right back in front of her mailbox. Unfortunately, she did not receive her mail that day as a result. This Catch-22 situation prevents elderly or infirm residents from receiving their mail as the USPS and the road crews are working at cross purposes. Is the order that came from Portland consistent with the USPS policies of the rest of the country. If so, based upon today's weather reports, it appears the USPS can skip mail delivery in 49 states! USPS and the city/county governing body should have a workable plan which benefits the citizens for these rare episodes.
Posted 14 February 2014, 10:49 a.m.
©2014 Eagle Newspapers