Judge lets 1984 agreement stand requiring Jersey City to pay for Parsippany sewer plant

By Ben Horowitz | The Star-Ledger
on August 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM

MORRISTOWN ? A Superior Court judge has ruled that Jersey City must abide by a 1984 agreement requiring it to pay part of the cost to operate and maintain a sewage treatment plant in Parsippany.

The city and its municipal utilities authority had sued to void the agreement with the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority and nine participating Morris County towns, contending that municipalities cannot be forced into ?perpetual? arrangements lasting for an ?unreasonable period of time.?

Jersey City, which has gotten water from the Rockaway River since approximately 1908, operated a previous sewage plant before turning it over to the RVSA in 1971 with an agreement to pay part of the costs.

The city owns a reservoir near the plant and the plant helps keep the reservoir and the river clean.

In 1984, the agreement was amended amid construction of a new plant. But in 2010, the city decided it wanted out of the pact because it could no longer afford to pay what it called an inordinate share of the expense of treating sewage of ?affluent suburban towns,? according to its lawsuit filed in Morristown.

In 2013, Jersey City paid $3.36 million for operation and maintenance of the plant, out of a total of $8.65 million for operation and maintenance and a total sewerage authority budget of $19.9 million.

In his ruling issued on Aug. 18, Assignment Judge Thomas Weisenbeck concluded that the 1984 agreement is ?still valid, because the duration is neither perpetual nor unreasonable.?

He pointed out that the agreement will end when the facility becomes ?inoperable.?

Weisenbeck also disputed Jersey City?s assertion that it faces an economic disadvantage compared with the suburbs.

The judge cited U.S. Census Bureau statistics showing that Jersey City?s poverty level has decreased by almost 6 percent since 2000 and the city?s median household income increased from $37,682 in 2000 to $54,280 in 2010, a jump of 43 percent, which was higher than any of the Morris municipalities.

Also, Weisenbeck pointed out, Jersey City benefits not only from the water treatment provided by the RVSA, but from its ?bulk water sales? to other communities.

Joseph Marazati, an attorney for the Rockaway sewerage authority, hailed the decision as ?a major benefit to the municipalities.?

Had Jersey City succeeded in voiding the agreement, Morris residents? sewer bills would have increased, he pointed out.

Ed DeHope, one of the attorneys representing Jersey City and the utilities authority, said of the decision: ?We?re still studying it and going over it with our clients. We won?t have any comment until we get instructions on what to do next.?

Despite the ruling, the four-year-old case is far from over.

Although the 1984 agreement will stand, Judge Weisenbeck has yet to rule on two other counts in the lawsuit. Jersey City is seeking monetary damages for allegedly incorrect assessments and a ruling that is has no more obligation to pay for the debt incurred when the current plant was built.

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/20 ... rsippany_sewer_plant.html

Quote:

I'd stock up on the bottled stuff, guys. This has the makings of a water war.

A sewer skirmish
Jersey City should pay for its reservoir

February 26
Daily Record

It was about 100 years ago when the city of Jersey City volunteered to pay for sewer treatment for towns in the Rockaway River basin to protect its then-newly created reservoir in Parsippany. That effort eventually morphed into the nine-town Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority, and Jersey City continues to pay a share of the costs -- $2.87 million a year. The balance of the authority's yearly budget of $7.1 million is split among the nine towns.

After all these years, Jersey City wants out. It says that it should no longer be obligated to contribute to the authority, noting that the continued magnitude of its contribution was never contemplated when the city began sewage treatment in the early 1900s. Needless to say, annual sewer costs for the nine towns would increase if Jersey City opts out.

Things have changed a lot in 100 years, but one thing that hasn't changed is that Jersey City still owns and operates its 11.3 billion gallon capacity reservoir. It seems reasonable to expect the city to help ensure that water flowing into the reservoir remains clean. The reservoir is a great asset to the city and $2.87 million a year does not seem all that much for the city to pay to help maintain it.

That said, we hope this dispute, which may end up in court, does not degenerate into a political battle between suburban Republicans and urban Democrats. Wharton Mayor William Chegwidden seemed to be going in that direction when he said, "They want to renege on the agreement, but they'll gladly take our water."

Actually, speaking from a Morris County perspective, it's not "our" water. The river is owned by no one, and once the water gets to the reservoir, it is owned by Jersey City.