Years ago, all across the U.S.A, rural neighborhoods saw the benefits of having one source of water instead of everyone having their own well. So they formed water co-ops. One co-op was quite progressive for the time: They installed modern water treatment equipment, and they did not charge their members by the amount of water used. This co-op fairly and strongly enforced three rules: (1) Pay a yearly fee (2) Use as much water as you need for yourself and your home business (3) Don't take advantage of the other members One day, a new family moved into the community. They made no secret how happy they were to be there and how proud they were of their water supply business. The man proudly handed some brochures that described work that he had done in other communities, laying pipes to run water to and throughout new subdivisions. He proudly promoted the new materials and techniques he invented to pipe water much cheaper than anyone else ever dreamed. The community welcomed this man and his family with open arms. Almost immediately, the community began to realize that this man had tapped into his own water line at the edge of the community, and was using his water supply to service several houses in an adjacent developing subdivision not serviced by the co-op. He installed a meter on each new line and began selling water. When confronted by the co-op administrators, this man said that he was complying with all three of the rules. This was his home business, and he did not believe he was taking advantage of the other members because he felt everyone in the co-op had the opportunity to do the same thing that he was. The administrators gave the man a deadline to come into compliance with the rules or his water would be cut off. The man refused on the basis that such action would deprive him of his livelihood. He told them that if they tried to cut off his water, he would go to court to obtain a restraining order that would allow him to keep taking the water as long as he could keep the case open. Faced with the possibility that the man could keep pumping the water indefinitely, the administrators felt they had no choice but to file suit for breach of contract. The man went to court to obtain a restraining order. In the ensuing press coverage, the man accused the co-op of impeding progress. He complained that the co-op singled him out to put him out of business because they were afraid of the discount prices he was offering. He said the co-op's policy favored the members and was bad for consumers. This is like what happened in Austin. Should the man get to keep pumping?

Back to Previous Post Printer Friendly Version | E-mail This Article to a Friend