FPUD wastes ratepayers' money

My opinion of FPUD’s recent performance follows and what I see is a terrible waste of ratepayers’ money. I have many research articles on UV radiation; it is only one of many disinfection methods. UV radiation leaves no residue, providing proof that a 99.95-percent bacterial kill is obtained; therefore, a follow-up disinfection method such as peroxide is recommended, but FPUD prefers chlorine. Why waste money when chorine disinfection by FPUD is already in use? Furthermore, I demand that FPUD distribute the State of California communication requiring UV radiation usage by FPUD; I do not believe such a communication exists.

The sludge drying plant is another waste of money. All “Super Soil” bags carry the following message: “No Sewage Sludge.” San Diego quit sludge drying for financial reasons. FPUD is competing against larger utilities for limited markets and I would never use sewage sludge in my grove. A previous sludge drying plant in Fallbrook reportedly created terrible odors.

The Santa Margarita Project has cost FPUD ratepayers over a million dollars and the Sandia Creek Dam Project even more. Neither of these projects ever received required state approval.

One FPUD director is an Oceanside registered lobbyist. The FPUD manager (Union Tribune, 3/2/06) was required to repay $3,368 to the County Water Authority for illegally billed mileage reimbursements because he already received an $8,000 yearly car allowance from FPUD.

I have a small “avo grove” and water costs are too high. Cheaper water from a small water district is received by groves on Sandia Creek Drive near Sandia Terrace. All groves near Sandia Creek Drive in Riverside County have cheaper water.

In Fallbrook, many farmers state that if they do not have a well on their property, they cannot financially survive because of the high water costs. Is someone at FPUD getting rich?

Archie McPhee