The court ruled a while back that an elderly Claysburg, Pa.-area couple, Donald R. and Janet Burket, are legally obliged to hook into the Greenfield Township water system. “They have done that and they are paying the standard monthly rate for township water, but the Burkets contend that while they are hooked into the system, they should not be required to actually use the water for daily living purposes.” Janet Burket says the chlorine bothers her, and the township has gone back to court in search of a court order compelling them to use public water “for all human consumption in the residence,” on pain of contempt fines. [Altoona Mirror, editorial; mediator assigned]
14 Comments
This reminds me of a recent law requiring everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty/tax.
What is the penalty for drinking bottled water in Claysburg? I’d like to know what the judge and prosecutor are drinking.
Ve know vhere you live. You vill drink the vater!
If governments or the courts have the power to force people to eat or drink something they don’t want to consume, then there is no liberty left in America. None. Because there is no liberty more fundamental than the ownership of one’s own body, and without that no other liberty is possible. And if the state has authority to force you to drink something you don’t want, then they, not you, own your body.
Well, its coming soon to a body near you.
If you visit Clays-burg city,
You will find it very pretty.
Just two things of which you must beware —
You must drink the water and you must breathe the air.
Prosecution! Prosecution! It’s a simple melody.
Drinking bottled wa-ter, is a minor felony.
the modern liberal state. you have the right to abortion and gay sex, but not the right to decide what kind of water to drink.
seriously, if i was the judge here, i would cite lawrence and be done with it.
What I can’t find in the stories you link to is any indication of why the city is pressing this. Apparently, the rationale for the ordinance is to generate funds, and to prevent cross-contamination of the public water supply. But the defendants say that they are paying the water fee, and the well water isn’t contaminating the public supply. Assuming that’s true, what is the harm being done to the township if these people don’t actually use the water?
It’s possible that the law may be on the township’s side here (I have no idea), but I’m wondering why the city considers it worthwhile to spend the time and money pursuing it.
It does seem suspiciously excessive for the township to do all this, given the potential of the outcome – UNLESS there’s more than is being reported.
Yeah, I’m inclined to think there’s something we’re not being told. If I had to guess, my theory would be that the monthly fee is just for the connection and that you have to pay more to actually buy the water. If that’s the case, then it’s an important detail that should have been reported.
My sympathies would still be with the homeowners. You shouldn’t be forced to buy something that: a) you don’t want; b) you don’t need; and c) makes you sick. But the township’s behavior would be a lot easier to understand if it turned out that this was basically about money.
Usually there is a connection fee and a per gallon used fee on top of that. The power company will lose money if y0u are connected to 200 amp service and you use zero killowatt hours each month. All water utitlites are different in their billing structure, but I surmise that this water is metered in addition to a connection fee.
I always look for an ulterior motive when the cost of litigation seems excessive compared to winning everything you are asking for. Maybe the ground water is polluted, and for some reason the town doesn’t want to tell anyone.
or they don’t want other homeowners to do what this people are doing because others will want to do it, thus raising water rates up for the remainder.
I had some Army buddies from the Altoona area. Nice guys, but I always suspected that they put something in the water there.
Not for nothing, but in my neck of the woods, the water bill is for water used, sewage, and a connection fee. The sewage fee is based upon gallons of water used.
I am wondering if, in this case, if the issue isn’t really the metering of sewage which is done on the front end – ie water being used.
The Burkets may be using the benefit of the sewage system without paying for it as there is no metering of the water going into the house.
While I agree that the Burkets should not be forced to use water from the town, they should also not reap the benefit of using the city’s sewage and treatment plants to dispose of their waste.
If the issue really is about the metering of water for sewage, then perhaps the Beckets should be required to put in a septic tank / leech field (good luck with that). Failing that, the better solution might be to put the meter on the well water line and read that, thus giving the city the number of gallons used from the well water that went into the city sewage system and was treated.
Bill the Beckets for that amount and move on.
[…] This sounds as bad as the individual mandate, requiring people to pay for water that they aren’t using. At least it’s a local policy. […]