When the town voted to take over the water company that serves the south village, voters were told is wasn't the town that would be the owner but rather an "enterprise fund" that would be separate from the town, so the taxpayers would never have to pay anything, only the users would pay. Sorry, folks, but that was wrong. In Massachusetts, if an "enterprise fund" can't pay for itself, the shortfall must be made up by the town. That's what's been happening for several years now. At the annual town meeting we vote one appropriation for the next year's water company budget, being assured that the users will actually cover that amount, not the taxpayers, but then we separately vote on another appropriation to make up the last year's shortfall.

Apparently the state doesn't like that little subterfuge. The state thinks voters should be told upfront - if it's true as it has been for many years - that the water company is going to cost more than what they're going to charge the users, so that taxpayers know they're subsidizing the users. The state may insist we do that at this year's annual town meeting.

I'm told the water company could pay for itself without taxpayer money if it raised its rates by about 30% to 40%. That kind of increase may sound high, but it's is in line with what people in other towns hereabouts have been facing on their water and sewer bills. Most of us in town have to maintain and pay for our own wells and pumps. Should we have to subsidize the water company users? And should we think about electing water commissioners who have the guts to raise the rates to cover costs, rather than going for that good old money that grows on trees?