Sunday, March 18, 2012

A Comment On A Comment

In response to our recent post (link here) about the makeup of the PRVWSD Board, a reader made the following comment.

Wouldn't it make sense for members from the other counties beside Rankin also be leaseholders? Seems so to me...

Of the 5 counties that make up the District, only two of them have any leaseholder property, Rankin and Madison.  We have no explanation why Madison County's appointee was not required to be a leaseholder.

A paragraph taken from page 23 of the recent Stennis Study said:

According to the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, as of December 31, 2011, there were 5,748 leases held by the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District; of these 4,475 were in Rankin County and 1,273 were in Ridgeland/Madison County.

Approximately 78% of the leases in Rankin County, 22% in Madison County and none in the other 3 counties.

The Rez News
Barnett Reservoir

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I've posted previously on this rezident difference of leaseholders, still don't understand the concept of having same # of reps of rezidents for both rankin and madison.

Anonymous said...

No logic just government

Anonymous said...

Since the thing is paid for now, and the Board is able to jerk around us leaseholders, why would Leake, Scott or Whatever that other county is, even have members on the Board, since all the leasehold land is in Madison and Rankin County? Those others are benefited, but the PRV just jerks us around and provides free services to everybody but us, since we pick up the tab for that free public use.