Queen Creek officials view Wednesday night’s pending council vote to purchase the town’s private water company as the right move at the right time. It also serves to grow the size of Town Hall and violates a principle of limited government that the public sector should provides essential services only when the private sector is unable or unwilling to do so.
By all accounts, the Queen Creek Water Co. has done a great job of serving the area since it was created in 1954. The owners for the past 35 years, the Gardner family, have properly maintained and updated the water system. Today, the company operates 11 water wells and serves about 9,500 customers, Tribune writer Sarah Boggan reported Monday. The owners have decided it’s time to sell, and water company president Paul Gardner told Boggan he gets about one phone call a month from potential private buyers. But the family wanted to give the town of Queen Creek the first opportunity.
It just so happens that Queen Creek’s strategic documents over the 10 years have called for the town to someday own its own water department, assistant town manager Patrick Flynn told the Editorial Board in a meeting Monday. Actually, Flynn and Queen Creek Mayor Art Sanders called this purchase a long-range plan, but that’s a stretch since the town hasn’t saved any money for this purpose. Instead, Queen Creek would borrow $40 million from a state revolving fund for water projects, and would raise the current customer water rates to repay that debt.
Like the rest of the East Valley, Queen Creek has grown rapidly in the past decade. It won’t ever get as big as its neighbors, as officials expect the population to reach a limit around 35,000. But Sanders and Town Manager John Kross emphasized throughout Monday’s meeting that many of Queen Creek’s newer residents have an urban mindset that prefers government operation of key services, including the drinking water supply. I can’t deny that’s the standard practice for larger municipalities. But often cities step in when a water company is failing to meet local demands. Once in control, a city never considers whether the water utility could operate better under the authority of a more responsible private provider. Sanders pointed out the main reason government officials don’t consider possible alternatives: A city has far more influence over how and where development occurs when it owns the water supply. The city can dictate (or facilitate) when major employers can hook into the system and what rates they will pay.
The mayor admitted city officials are nervous about the Queen Creek Water Co. possibly being sold to an out-of-state buyer, a concern that comes up frequently when growing communities debate the future of private utilities. It’s funny how city officials rarely complain when out-of-state retailers and manufacturers want to do business in their community, but such owners are automatically unsafe when it comes to utilities.
To be fair, Sanders and Kross made a good point that this appears to be the best time, and perhaps the last opportunity, for Queen Creek to buy the existing water system. The current owners are willing, but future ones might not be. Also, the water company’s value might climb to a point that a public purchase would become too pricey. And if Queen Creek elected officials are feeling as much pressure from residents as Sanders hinted at, Town Hall might have little choice but to follow their wishes.
But it’s a shame that we Americans continue to praise free markets and private enterprise with our words, and then repeatedly reject it with our actions in favor of government intervention.
Twitter
Like everything related to government large or small it ends up costing more than private sectors. Why, because the smaller the size of government the more say the taxpayer has. To get their way government has to get larger so the taxpayer has far less chance of stopping them. All at the expense of the taxpayer. Wouldn’t we all like to buy something everyone needs and then charge those that need it more money for the same thing