pu66ic Service Commission
O f West Virginia
3rook Street, P.0. Box 812
kston,

Phone: (304) 340-0300
F
m(304) 340-0325

25323

November 27,20 13

Branchland, WV 25506

Wayne Adkins
475 Harless Fork Road
Branchland, WV 25506

Brenda Adkins
414 Harless Fork Road
Branchland, WV 25506

Roger and Jolene Pack
505 Harless Fork
Branchland, WV 25506

Allen Adkins
465 Harless Fork
Branchland, WV 25506

Hartsel Scott and Rebecca Parsons
545 Harless Fork Road
Branchland, WV 25506

Randy Adkins

414 Harless Fork Road

RE:

Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C
Randy Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District and West
Virginia-American Water Company
Case No. 13-1316-PWD-W-C
Brenda Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District and West
Virginia-American Water Company
Case No. 13-1318-PWD-W-C
Allen Adkins
Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District, and
West Virginia-American Water Company
Case No. 13-1319-PWD-W-C
Wayne Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District and West
Virginia-American Water Company
Case No. 13-1320-PWD-W-C
Roger and Jolene Pack
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District, and
West Virginia-American Water Company

 Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C, et al.
November 27,20 13
Page 2

Case No. 13-1322-PWD-W-C
Hartsel Scott and Rebecca Parsons
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District and West
Virginia-American Water Company
Case No. 13-1323-PWD-W-C
Hartsel and Janet Parsons
V.

Branchland-Midkiff Public Service District,
Lavalette Public Service District, and
West Virginia-American Water Company
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I

I Pursuant to Rule 4.3.c of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of
the Staff memorandum in this matter. Any responses must be submitted to the Executive Secretary’s Office in
writing within 10 days of this date, unless directed otherwise. All other parties of record have provided an email
address.
Your failure to respond in writing to the utility’s answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents
may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file,
without hrther hearing or notice.
If you have not done so, you are encouraged to file the Electronic Mail Agreement, previously mailed to
you, which allows the Commission to serve all orders issued in this matter via electronic docket notification.
When you provide an email address, you will automatically receive docket notifications as documents are
filed in this proceeding. The email notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the
time the filing is processed. If you have not provided your email address, please send an email to
caseinfo@,psc.state.wv.us
and state the case number in the email subject field.
Please note - the Public Service Commission does not accept electronic filings.
Sincerely,
Ingrid F k e l l , Director
Executive Secretary Division
IF/s
Enc.: Memo

 FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO:

FROM:

INGRID FERRELL
Executive Secretary

DATE: November 27,2013
A

'I I

DAVID A. SADE, Staff
Legal Division

SUBJECT: Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C
Randy Adkins

12:01 PN

V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water
Case No. 13-1316-PWD-W-C
Brenda Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water

-

Case No. 13-1318-PWD-W-C
Allen Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water
Case No. 13-1319-PWD-W-C
Wayne Adkins
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water
Case No. 13-1320-PWD-W-C
Roger and Jolene Pack
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water
Case No. 13-1322-PWD-W-C
Hartsel Scott and Rebecca Parsons
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water

fJw

=I I

27 2013 pfC

II
bll

 Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C
November 27,2013
Page 2

Case No. 13-1323-PWD-W-C
Hartsel and Janet Parsons
V.

Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water
(Cases consolidated under Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C)

“Water, water, everywhere . . .’” While the relief sought by the Complainants
obviously is not waiting right outside their homes for the turn of a valve, water service is
within physical reach of the facilities of two public and one private water providers, none
of which currently are willing and/or able to bring water to these individuals who
currently have no reliable source.
In the attached Final Staff Internal Memorandum, Jim Weimer of the
Commission’s Engineering Division outlined the procedural history of the nowconsolidated complaint cases, which seek identical relief. Mr. Weimer also summarized
the results of his contacts with representatives of Branchland-Midkiff and Lavalette PSDs
(“Districts” “PSDs”) and West Virginia American Water Co. (“WVAW’), as well as with
the Complainants. In addition, he provided relevant information regarding prior
Commission proceedings and their outcomes to date that could have a bearing on the
issues raised in the instant matter. Attached to his Memorandum are exhibits plotting the
existing facilities and the distances and required facilities involved in possible extension
scenarios.
Mr. Weimer noted that it was clear in their meeting that “ . . . the Complainants
recognized that most could not afford the per customer [estimated] cost contribution of
over $20,000” for extending service under the Main Extension Rules contained in the
Commission’s Rulesfor the Government of Water Utilities.
Notwithstanding the financial hurdle presented by use of the extension approach,
Engineering Staff recommended that the Complainants execute a formal Main Line
Extension request with the Branchland PSD which would generate a formal cost estimate
reflecting the required utility contribution. Mr. Weimer also suggested that Branchland
investigate a remote water station at the end of its line on Harless Fork to serve the
Complainants near their homes at low cost.

. . . and all the boards did shrink; water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink.” Rime of the Ancient
Mariner, Samuel Coleridge, 1797-1798.
1

 Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C
November 27,20 13
Page 3

The Legal Division concurs with Engineering’s recommendations and urges their
incorporation into a Commission Order.
DAS/cs
Attachment

cws$%
h:\tsade\cases 2013\2013-formal complaints\atkins, et a1 v. branchland psd, et all 13-13 16-pwd-w-c\atkins, et al. initial final joint
staff memo.doc

 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

FINAL STAFF INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:

November 26,20 13

TO:

Tony Sade, Staff Attorney
Legal Division

FKOM:

Jim Weimer, P.E. Engineer I1
Engineering Division

SUBJECT: RANDY ADKINS
Case No. 13-1315-PWD-W-C

BRENDA ADKINS
CASE NO. 13-13 16-PWD-W-C

ALLEN ADKINS
CASE NO. 13-1318-PWD-W-C

WAYNE ADKINS
CASE NO. 13- 1319-PWD- W-C

ROGER AND JOLENE PACK
CASE NO. 13-1320-PWD-W-C

HARTSEL AND JANET PA <SONS
CASE NO. 13-1323-PWD;P -C

HARTSEL SCOTT AND REBECCA PARSONS
CASE NO. 13-1322-PWD-W-C
V.
Branchland-Midkiff PSD, Lavallette PSD and
West Virginia American Water

I

I
On August 30, 2013, the above Complainants (Complainants) filed Formal
Complaints against the Branchland-Midkiff and Lavalette Public Service Districts (Districts) and
the West Virginia American Water Company (WVAM) alleging that both the Districts and WVAM
all owned water mains close to their residences but refused to provide water service to them. As
relief the Complainants requested that one of those water utilities be required to provide service to
them. The Complaints noted that the Branchland Midkiff Public Service District main was within
three quarter mile of all of the Complainant’s residences.

‘I

On September 10, 20 13 the Branchland Midkiff Public Service District re
the Complaint via Counsel. In the response, the PSD noted that it had recently completed a
Certificate water project in the area filed as Case No.ll-0244-PWD-CN. The project utilized
contingency funds to extend service beyond the original proposed end point along Harless Fork
Road. However, there were insufficient funds to extend service any further based on cost estimates
from its Engineer.

 Tony Sade, Staff Attorney
Case Nos. 13-1316- PWD=W-C
Page 2
On September 11,2013 the WVAM responded via Counsel. In the response the
WVAM requesting that it be dismissed from the Complaint case.. The WVAM stated that it
believed that the Complainant was within the Branchland Midkiff Public Service District service
area. In addition there was no allegation that the WVAM had violated the WVPSC Rules for the
Government of Water Utilities (Water Rules) , Rule 5.5, which deals with extensions of service.
Consequently, WVAM believed the claims made by the Complainant were meritless and the
WVAM should be dismissed as a Defendant in all of the Formal Complaint case.
On September 12, 20 13, the Lavalette Public Service District (Lavalette) filed a
response via Counsel. In the response Lavalette denied that it had violated any law and noted that
Branchland Midkiff was outside of its service territory and requested that that Lavalette be
dismissed from the Complaint case.
Staff has spoken to both Public Service Districts and WVAM regarding the location
of their water mains. The mains of WVAM are a much greater distance from the Complainant than
both Districts. In addition, WVAM would have difficulty entering an area with two other existing
water utilities very close to the Complainants.
Staff also met with all of the Complainants in early November to discuss the possible
outcomes. The Complainants voiced their complete fmstration that despite being so close to three
water utilities they have not received water service. However, Staff did discuss all of the WVPSC
options for extending service through the Main Extension Rules. Based on an early informal
estimate of the cost to serve all Complainants provided by Branchland, the Complainants
recognized that most could not afford the per customer contribution of over $20,000.
While the Lavalette service area is not near the Complainant, Lavalette did extend a
new main into the Branchland Midkiff service area at the request of the Branchland Midkiff Board.
The cost of the two mile Lavalette extension into Branchland was in excess of $600,000. The
Branchland Board wanted an additional water supply and a source which would allow service at a
higher elevation than its source could provide. Branchland’s water supplier is the Town of West
Hamlin and according to the Branchland Board, there are many times when Branchland cannot get
the water it requires due to limitations in the West Hamlin supply. Some funds still remain in the
still open Lavalette Certificate project which could be available to serve the Complainant if the two
Boards could reach an accommodation on customer ownership and the economic implications of a
Lavalette extension further into the Branchland Midkiff service area. The funding agency providing
the loans to Lavalette would also have to agree. The WVAM line is over two (2) road miles from
the last Complainant and over one (1) mile fiom the closest Complainant.according to the
Huntington District construction group. The attached Exhibit shows the current line locations. Staff
has discussed the possibilities with both Boards.
During the case investigation and discussions with the PSD Boards, Staff noted
that Lavalette and Branchland had not yet prepared boundary revisions to allow Lavalette to install

 Tony Sade, Staff Attorney
Case Nos. 13-1316- PWD=W-C
Page 3
its main and serve customers in the Branchland service area. A document is now being reviewed by
the parties to accomplish that requirement. Staff also noted that there was no water purchase
agreement to allow Lavalette to offset the nearly $600,000 cost of providing the secondary source to
Branchland. Until such a reasonable agreement can be executed the Lavalette customers will be
subsidizing the Branchland customers with the loan repayment costs for the Lavalette extension into
Branchland. Staff had anticipated that a water purchase agreement, when executed, might supply
sufficient incentive to Lavalette by allowing Lavalette to deliver large flows to Branchland in
addition to those for the Complainants. However, the Lavalette Board was informed by its Manager
that a seriously impaired main source supply line would have to be replaced and that line
replacement cost eliminated any possibility to extend further into Branchland to serve the
Complainants.
Consequently, Staff recommends that the Complainants execute a formal Main Line
Extension request with the Branchland Board to obtain a formal estimate with the required utility
contribution noted. In addition, Staff believes that Branchland should investigate installing a remote
purchase water station at the end of the current Branchland line on Harless Fork so that the
Complainants can obtain water at low cost close to their residences via hauling tanks.

J cw:

I
I

I

.II

- /I

 END WVAM LINE




1

EXHIBIT I

 

I
I
I
I

I




 NEEDED 3/4 MILE EXTENSION a" 
 PICK UP CUSTOMERS

1.9 MIL EXTENSION BY
LAVALETTE INTO BRANCHLAND



I. --
?are ?a -

- COUNTY LINE 

 PRV STATION NOT
?xr . ET INSTALLED
. Pt - .
\v

"in.

Harless Fork WV 25506 USA 

 a  earth


 

EXHIBIT II

    

f? Viewer for Flex Internal [xplorer provided by American Water 

9.:



eqismaps

 

 

A :fcunmrta?mb?mds 
Favortes 
. . 
1 ONEGISViewevfoerx - p: gage- gig-y. 19935. 0.
 dutisginia {31:3-
A   
M15 Simple
 TrEnd VWAW

 

 

?43-3 :1 
 
7 A  Langm: Jan-1n 2-5 
. ?lv 
i)
I 
21Ari-353" 
C, Btmd?and
?if}.
4- ., Mug Hollow 241.41.:
1 ml . :3 i
unmmzozau Lwrozmn 2? j; 
Done ??Locd htranet - moms -

 

EXHIBIT