Letter to the editor: City, Rural Water should stick with original contract

The current issue before the city of Jamestown and the Stutsman Rural Water District is in fact a simple one, which we could call “understanding water issues 101.”

The city in good faith entered into an agreement with the Stutsman Rural Water District in which the city agreed to sell water to the Stutsman Rural Water District for its rural water system. In this agreement payment for water lines constructed by the rural water association in areas later to be annexed was discussed and the process for doing so was spelled out.

We all expect parties with whom we make deals to make a good faith effort to live up to their end of the bargain.

The Stutsman Rural Water District wishes now to set aside the portion of the agreement dealing with annexation. It apparently believes that a loophole which has to do with a guaranteed federal and/or state loan it received (and which they likely would not have received without the cooperation of the city of Jamestown) contains a clause which suggests it does not have to abide by this portion of the agreement it earlier entered into with the city of Jamestown. It has not asked for and is unwilling to ask for relief from this clause in its agreement with its lenders. Again, the city is not a party to that agreement. Really?

The Stutsman Rural Water District desires to use a “loophole” to escape its obligations in the previously negotiated agreement for its monetary gain. The city of Jamestown simply asks that the agreement be lived up to.

Sometimes we need to remember that words have meanings. The words in the original agreement between the Stutsman Rural Water District and the city have meanings and they and it should be respected by all parties.

The words “Stutsman Rural Water District” also have a meaning. I would ask that both parties do research on the meaning of the words “city” and “rural.”

It is not too late to have common sense, mutual respect and living up to our word prevail over loopholes for the good of all residents of Stutsman County. This is not the example we want to set for our city or county. The only alternative is to get this to the courts as quickly as possible.

Tags: opinion, letters, water