Unserviced districts

After reading the editorial “Tapped out” in the Times-Democrat of Feb. 15, I fully agree that the residents of Fauquier County are being short-changed by the Water and Sanitation Authority (WSA) in both quality of water and overall service.
I further agree that this is not wholly the WSA's fault, due to the constraints under which it is chartered, but the problems with water and sewer in our county lay directly at the feet of the board of supervisors.
The Fauquier WSA is an independent political subdivision of the commonwealth and is required to provide public utilities throughout Fauquier County and is not a department of Fauquier County.
However, the five-member WSA board is appointed by the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors.
The WSA was chartered to provide water and sewer services consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Our first comprehensive plan in 1967 had as a top-10 priority to “Provide, through public and private cooperation, an adequate program for public utilities.”
The 1992-2010 plan restated that requirement and called on the board of supervisors to establish priorities for service (water and sewer) implementation in the areas presently not served.
Further, on Dec. 7, 1993, the board of supervisors passed by unanimous vote a resolution regarding the provision of public water and sewer to the New Baltimore, Catlett, Calverton, and Midland service districts.
Obviously, after years of mouthing the urgency of this requirement, no action has been taken.
So how is the board of supervisors supposed to plan and pay for this requirement?
Chapter 9 of the comprehensive plan states “Properly composed and followed as a fiscal planning document, the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) should prevent large oscillations in the tax rate, and should improve the timely and economical provision of infrastructure.”
Now the question is – how much money is in the county CIP for water and sewer?
The WSA CIP has set aside only $3,650 in its FY2012 budget because “no new demands for service capacity are likely in the short term.”
Back in 1967, the comprehensive plan identified five service districts covering 172 square miles of the county’s land area.
Being realistic, I don’t think we could afford to provide water and sewer to that large an area.
Well, in 1992, the comprehensive plan identified nine service districts, but they collectively covered only 40 square miles. Now we are looking at an area that is feasible to provide services.
But wait: In 2004, it was reported that the service districts (land designated for intense development) totaled only 11.9 square miles.
Realistically, that should be an easy task. After almost 45 years this task has not been completed or even started.
There have been a couple of developers that have proposed to complete a large share of this task at their own expense, but our board of supervisors and county planners have said no.
What happened to the possibility of public/private partnerships?
What is really behind the board of supervisors' decisions over the years not to fund this vital requirement?
Do they just not care about the health and welfare of all the residents, or is it special-interest influence, or is there some political rationale?
John R. Griffin
Warrenton