@skutfarcus That's the whole story over here in Podunkville. However, I'm a HUGE believer in "What Goes Around, Comes Around", and "People Always Get What's Coming To Them. ALWAYS." Yeah, they might get away with stuff for a loooooong time, but eventually the birds come home to roost. And it won't be in MY nest.

The CEO Council of Peoria makes a case for a water buyout: Water Study Report PDF

The situation in Flint is far far different than what exists in Peoria.

Good ole boys... well... to be a cynic... would you rather have local good ole boys benefiting? or some distant 'good ole' corporate boys in New Jersey benefiting?What recourse do you you have with those corporate people in New Jersey to keep them from ripping you off? (hint: they are). Can you vote the CEO out? Can you vote someone else in? NO. The executives in New Jersey have virtually no accountability to you or anyone else in Peoria. Your city council on the other hand... yes you do.

@S.A.Shepler Do you think Illinois American is going to upgrade the infrastructure in a manner that best protects and enhances property values and water quality? Illinois American approached our neighborhood with 'improvements'. Those 'improvements' did a great job of protecting Illinois American's bottom line, while depreciating the usability of our property and putting us at risk for significant future expenses that do not exist now. We turned them down and made clear that future improvements needed to protect property owners interests as well.In light of this experience, I have 180'd on the water buyout. The City and property owners have a common interest in protecting home values, which Illinois American does not share.It is also my opinion that the costs for infrastructure will be so substantial and ongoing in nature, that it will act as a curb against inflating costs to fund 'good ole boy' pet projects. I think the city should proceed with due diligence.

@Mahkno Do you think the council gives damn about us. They are the ones giving away tax dollars to the local good ole boys. Think they are going to do upgrades to anywhere not in the club. Repairs sure after it fails but upgrades HAHAHAHAHAH.

I remember Jim Dakken and his thoughts that the city SHOULD own it's water rights and how that can facilitate and promote regional growth. There were many attributes necessary for that endeavor to be successful. Stewardship was one of them. We haven't seen "for the greater good " stewardship - we've seen "compassionate consideration for benevolent benefactors" stewardship. Lacking a patron to underwrite all the upfront costs, the cities previous malfeasance precludes it's capabilities to help itself.

@Mahkno I'm not opposed to a water buyout as long as true, long term costs are factored in. And were is the city's storm sewer river discharge thing at? How much is that costing?

@S.A.Shepler They probably won't need to worry about the storm sewer once Trump is done dismantling the EPA.

@skutfarcus Sadly this is probably true.That said... funding the CSO compliance was to be thru a new 'stormwater runoff utility'.

@skutfarcus Government mandate or NOT it's the right thing to do and greatly affects the area. Who in their right mind would want to live anywhere near one of the discharge pipes. Let alone have a family and buy a house .

@EyeintheSky Are you counting on the city to do the 'right' thing?

@skutfarcus NO, just like if they bought water company. Their past track record proves this time and again. How about a game starting with letter A name a plan they got involved with that failed.

@EyeintheSky A = ALL.

When a court case involving money reaches the decade point, it reminds me of this book.