Regarding the RPMUD Newsletter of 4/08 delivered last week

In order to clarify the information contained in the RPMUD newletter 04-2008 that you received last week, please review the following:

1. The land in question for this water plant, between Mosswood Drive and the #5 Charleston fairway, was acquired by RPMUD from RPCC in 1995. The RPCC Board and adjacent property owners were told it was for a new water well (water well #3), which would supply water to water plant #2 and supplement well #2 at the site near the middle of the RPMUD district. This well has been operating for 12 years. There is also room at #2 to construct a second storage tank, rather than at the front entrance site. Raising taxes is not an item, since RPMUD already has the money in hand for the project.

2. Local realestate agents and appraisers have said real estate values will decrease due to the plant location at the entrance to RP and Mosswood.

We currently have a reliable source of water and a backup well (#3) for our primary #2 plant.

3. East Plantation Utility District has over 200% of their needs, and they are currently 86% built out. Either of their two plants can handle their requirements, and they are interconnected to RPMUD in case of a problem.

EPUD does not have a sewage treatment plant. They use the RPMUD plant near the RPMUD office. At one of our RPMUD meetings, it was suggested trading water for sewage.

4. The current main plant #2 is on the outer edge of the 100-year flood plain and did suffer some damage during the 1994 500-year flood. A 2.5 -foot berm was built around that site after the 1994 flood. There is also room there for another large storage tank and another well, if the current well finally fails.

5. The chlorine gas hazard is real. The objections to it in proximity to homes in the #3 well area have not Fizzled, and was discussed last Wednesday at the consulting engineer's office. They refuse to budge in using liquid water purification rather than gas, even though it has been pointed out that major county neighbors use liquid due to the plant's proximity to residential, commercial and public use areas. The San Jacinto River Authority uses liquid at their primary facility in The Woodlands' Sterling Ridge area. April Sound, Bentwater, Del Lago, and Walden also are liquid.

The last line of RPMUD's #5 item - "we live here also" is not exactly true. The first four names in the newsletter live here, but a long way away from the #3 site. The last two live in Walden and Conroe.

6. The noise problem has not fizzled either. The noise levels at the similar locations in EPUD are loud when turned on. The pumps at RPMUD #2 are noticeable at 100 feet from the pumps.

7. The March 6, 2008, letter from RPMUD's consulting engineer concerning the reasons to build plant #3 cite the potential development on the west side of I-45 as a primary reason. It projected a commercial, multi-family development equivalent to 781 housing units, which would cause about a 74% increase in RPMUD's current use. Other factors in the letter were "fire protection" - the RPVFD only needs 10 hydrants; tanker trucks are their primary source of water, and "support for EPUD if they have a problem" - this one is a puzzle due to their overcapacity.

Finally, this last paragraph about "agenda out there whose primary purpose is more interested in personal benefit rather than general good of the majority, causing us to spend considerably more in legal fees and engineering fees." Had the RPMUD board been up front with the community, they might have avoided this. Remember the RPMUD community, EPUD community, Mosswood community and RPCC non-resident members are all upset about this project in front of our subdivision.

Also, to whose personal benefit are they referring? Property devaluation to residents is not a benefit. Is someone on the board benefiting? We hope not.
Posted by Dick Judge