This is the eleventh in a monthly series of guest blog posts about island groundwater topics by Mary Bruno, Vashon-Maury Island Groundwater Protection Committee.

Big changes are afoot on the Vashon-Maury water scene. As community-owned Westside Water Association prepares to expand, Burton Water is flirting with a transition from privately held company to member-owned cooperative. Both purveyors are also bracing for turnover at the top as  veteran operators Doug Dolstad at Westside, and Burton’s Jim Garrison and Evan Simmons eye retirement. 

These historic happenings at two of the Island’s oldest Group A water systems raise questions about the future of water on Vashon. Will Island water remain under local control? Will Island water systems continue to be reliable modulators of growth? Will we find skilled young operators to run our systems and protect our water? The truth is (gulp) nobody really knows. But we may be on the verge of finding out. I’ll be exploring all these questions in the coming months, but let’s focus for now on the fate of Burton Water and what it may portend. 

The company’s owners, Vashon natives Jim Garrison and Evan Simmons, have already entertained offers from two large, out-of-state utilities: Portland-based NW Natural Water and Washington Water Service, a subsidiary of the California Water Service Group. These  aggregators come with deep pockets and acquisitive natures. Preferring to keep their company in local hands, Garrison and Simmons declined the offers. Evan’s son, Nick Simmons, Burton’s  operator for two years now, went scouting for non-corporate options. Last summer, he found Fred Medlicott at the Northwest Cooperative Development Center (NWCDC), an Olympia-based nonprofit that has been midwifing community-owned cooperatives since 1979. Medlicott also has Vashon roots, having come of age on the Island. With his guidance, Burton customers are now figuring out whether it makes sense to buy their water company. 

Unofficial estimates value the company at about $1.5 million. If all 415 customers sign up, then the cost to join a member-owned Burton Water co-op would be about $3,600 per household. That’s a bargain compared to the $15,000 price tag for one of Westside Water’s 24 new water shares, and Burton customers would be able to pay off their buy-in fee over time. But money is just one hurdle on the road to customer ownership. 

“It requires an enormous amount of work—from the customers, for no money—to get this thing off the ground,” says Fred Medlicott. Think feasibility study, business plan, governance structure, drafting Articles of Incorporation and by-laws and policies and procedures, securing financing, and let’s not forget the all-important membership drive. The more members who come aboard the lower the price of entry for each of them, and the greater the degree of control over, for example, setting rates. 

Just the thought of all that work—and who will do it—can be a deal breaker. “‘Who’s going to step up?’ I hear that all the time,” says Fred. He is quick to point out that a cooperative is responsible for stewardship and for governance, but not for operations. It would hire a water professional to handle delivery, billing, maintenance, repairs, etc. “Average involvement for the average member is paying their monthly bill and maybe voting once a year,” says Fred. (That’s been my experience as a 21-year member of community-owned Westside Water.) 

But there’s also an above average component to community ownership: the mission-critical willingness of capable members to volunteer their time (and at times their sanity) to serve on the co-op’s governing board. Who will step up? On this question, Fred is not only sanguine, but confident. “Never once have I actually seen a cooperative organization not be able to produce a functional leadership team,” he says, adding that in Burton Water’s case especially, “There is no dearth of knowledge, experience or leadership. It’s a whole bunch of retired or semi-retired engineers, business executives, hydrologists. They have all the skills and expertise to operate their own system. I’m probably going to have to tell people, ‘I don’t need your help.’” The trick is to sustain that level of interest and talent over time. 

Co-owners Jim Garrison and Evan Simmons want to finalize a sale by May 2022. They’ll know by January whether selling to Burton customers is a feasible option. Due diligence, including a professional valuation of the company, will be complete by then. The clock is ticking and the stakes are high. “There are offers on the table from other companies,” says Nick Simmons, referencing the NW Natural Water and Washington Water Service overtures. “If the customers can’t meet those offers are the owners going to sell to the customers for less money? Probably not.” 

If the co-op initiative craters, for whatever reason, Burton Water could become the first domino to fall, the first of the Island’s seven large water systems to slip out of local control. NW Natural, one Burton suitor, owns and operates water systems in Oregon, Idaho, Washington and Texas, and is actively acquiring water and wastewater utilities. Rival Washington Water calls itself “the largest investor-owned water utility in the state,” serving some 200 Washington water systems. When I ask Fred Medlicott if this kind of consolidation is where water is going, he responds without hesitation: “It’s where everything is going,” he says. “The number of small private water companies is plummeting.”

The big question for Burton Water customers in these next two months may be less about who will step up to launch and govern a new water cooperative, and more about whether they’re comfortable with the alternative? There are clear upsides to being acquired by a big concern. Large companies come with money, expertise and incentive to upgrade the system, which co-op members, at least initially, may find hard to muster. But are Burton customers okay with ceding control of their water supply to a stranger when the stranger is a corporate aggregator whose allegiance will be to its own bottom line? Or should those same customers, who’ll be drinking and relying on that water, be the ones making the decisions? 

It’s a question worth asking ourselves.