Published in the Asbury Park Press
By Jean Mikle
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
UNITED WANTS SAY IN DECISION
DOVER TOWNSHIP — A dispute between United Water Toms River and the township over the wording — and by extension, the intent — of a Superior Court judge's court order has delayed Dover's plans to hire a consultant to monitor the water company's operations.
Superior Court Judge Vincent J. Grasso ruled June 13 that the township could hire an "overseer" who would act as the township's consultant and would receive water company documents and data about United Water's operations. The judge ordered the water company to pay the consultant's salary.
Dover officials believe the judge wants the consultant to have broad powers to review United's daily operations, but the water company does not see it that way. In a June 22 letter to Grasso, United lawyer Mark L. Mucci asked the judge to place a list of the documents that the consultant would be reviewing in the court order.
Mucci also said the water company wants a role in deciding who will be chosen as consultant, and wants to limit the consultant's salary to $50,000 a year.
Township Council President Gregory P. McGuckin said he is angered that United is trying to redefine the consultant's powers and limit the salary, instead of working with the township.
"I think that United Water is seeking another bite of the apple," McGuckin said. "They are trying to relitigate issues that have already been decided. . . . They are trying to hide from the town and the public what's going on in their offices."
Mayor Paul C. Brush said township officials do not want United Water to be included in the selection process for a consultant who is supposed to be overseeing United's actions on Dover's behalf.
"It's like the fox being allowed to guard the hen house," Brush said.
But United spokesman Richard Henning said it is the township that is trying to expand the judge's decision, which the water company says was never meant to give Dover oversight over the company's daily operations. He said township officials are putting up "a very strong political fight, and unfortunately, we will have to match them legally, every step of the way."
Henning said Grasso turned down the township's request for an independent authority to run the water company.
"He (Grasso) was very clear that the company will be operating the utility, and we will gladly, as we have been, hand over the reports that we file to the DEP on water quality and water testing," Henning said. "This decision was not meant for Dover Township to get involved in the management and the operations of the water utility, and the judge clearly stated that."
Following the court hearing June 13, township attorney Mark A. Troncone wrote Dover's interpretation of Grasso's court order, relying on the transcript of the court proceeding. Troncone submitted the proposed order to United's lawyers, who had five days to bring objections to the judge.
Last week, United's lawyers indicated they objected to portions of the proposed order, arguing that it was not what the judge intended. In his letter, however, Mucci noted that he did not yet have a transcript of the hearing when he wrote the company's version of the proposed court order.
Mucci said in his letter that once the company obtains the transcript, it will likely be necessary for the judge to hold another hearing on the matter, because Dover and United are not in agreement about the court order.
"Once again, the water company is not cooperating," said Linda L. Gillick, chairwoman of the Citizens Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster. "They are not cooperating with Dover Township officials or the public. . . . There shouldn't be a problem of anyone going in there if there is nothing to hide. It makes me question anything they have to say."
The township filed a lawsuit against United, asking that the judge appoint an independent authority to manage United Water's operations. The suit was filed June 2, four days after Memorial Day, when 7,400 United customers in northwestern sections of Dover were left with extremely low water pressure for several hours.
Areas located off Hooper Avenue also experienced low pressure, which led Dover officials to activate their emergency management system and move water tanker trucks into place because there was not enough pressure to fight fires.
United officials blamed the Memorial Day low-pressure problems on a computer error that made operators think a well was pumping water into the system when, in fact, it had shut down. By the time United's operators realized there was a problem, the company's storage tank at routes 70 and 9 was empty, and another tank off Indian Hill Road had only two feet of water.
Unable to reach United officials for several hours to determine what was happening, Brush and council members filed suit against the water company, asking the judge to appoint an independent authority to run United Water until the township's petition before the Board of Public Utilities is resolved.
Dover filed the petition in March, asking the BPU to revoke United's franchise to operate here. It is expected to be several months, at least, before the BPU makes a decision on the township's petition.
Published in the Asbury Park Press 06/30/06
|
