Guest Opinion | EWUA Board to consider road maintenance contribution without policy framework

||| FROM ELISABETH BRITT |||

The Eastsound Water Users Association (EWUA) board is preparing to vote on a proposal that would commit the association to a $30,000 initial payment and $10,000 annually toward the maintenance of a private road leading to one of its water tanks. The contribution represents approximately 19% of the road’s total maintenance cost, despite the fact that EWUA is not a homeowner, not an HOA member, and not legally obligated to fund private road upkeep.

The proposal has raised significant questions about fairness, fiduciary responsibility, and longterm precedent—particularly because EWUA does not currently have a policy governing contributions to private infrastructure. The board has acknowledged that it has sporadically contributed to road maintenance in the past, but without any formal policy regulating when, why, or how such payments are made.

Road Use and Service Realities
The private road serves fewer than fifteen residents, some of whom use it daily. EWUA, by contrast, uses the road only for periodic tank inspections and maintenance.

Although the tank serves approximately 40 EWUA members, the vast majority of thosevcustomers do not use this road to access their homes. They enter from other routes and do notvcontribute to the wear that drives maintenance costs. Meanwhile, the homeowners on the privatevroad benefit directly from the tank’s presence through improved water pressure, fire flowvcapacity, and system reliability.

These usage patterns raise important questions about whether EWUA’s limited presence on the road justifies a substantial financial contribution.

Legal and Regulatory Context
EWUA holds a legal easement for tank access. Under Washington law, easements do not require the easement holder to pay for road maintenance unless the easement document explicitly states otherwise.
(RCW 64.12.030 – Easements)

Additionally:

• EWUA is not a member of the HOA and therefore cannot be assessed under HOA statutes.
  (RCW 64.38.020 – HOA Powers Apply Only to Lot Owners)
• Washington’s water system regulations impose no requirement for water associations or Satellite Management Agencies to fund private road maintenance.
  (WAC 246290 – Group A Water Systems; WAC 246293 – Satellite Management
  Agencies)
• The tank and road are within EWUA’s general service area, not within one of its
  SMAmanaged systems, meaning SMA obligations do not apply.

In short, no RCW, WAC, or regulatory requirement obligates EWUA to pay for this road.
Fiduciary Responsibilities and Nonprofit Constraints

EWUA is a 501(c)(12) nonprofit mutual water company, which means it must:

• operate at cost,
• use funds solely for water system purposes, and
• avoid providing private benefit to a small group at the expense of the membership.
  (IRS 501(c)(12) Mutual Water Company Requirements)

A recurring payment for private road maintenance raises concerns about:

• proper use of member funds,
• fairness across the system, and
• compliance with nonprofit requirements.

These concerns become even more significant when considering who actually uses—and benefits from—the road itself. Ultimately, all EWUA members would bear the cost of maintaining a private road that EWUA does not own, does not control, and does not use in proportion to the homeowners who rely on it daily—even though the tank it leads to serves the broader membership. This distinction matters: the tank is a shared system asset, but the road is a private asset whose primary users are the residents who live on it.

Concerns About Setting a Precedent Without a Policy
One of the strongest objections to the proposal is the risk of establishing a de facto policy without first adopting a formal, written policy to guide such decisions.

EWUA operates ten tanks, many located on private roads. If the association agrees to pay for one road:

• other private road groups may expect similar contributions,
• the association may face escalating financial obligations, and
• the board may be accused of inconsistent or inequitable decisionmaking.

Without a clear policy, the board risks making a oneoff decision that becomes a binding
precedent—even though it was never formally adopted, debated, or structured to protect the
association’s longterm interests.

A formal policy would allow the board to:

• define criteria for when, if ever, EWUA contributes to private infrastructure,
• ensure fairness and consistency,
• protect member funds, and
• avoid unintended obligations across the system.

Proceeding without such a policy exposes EWUA to financial, legal, and governance risks.

Conclusion
The proposal before the board represents a significant financial commitment that is not legally required, not proportionate to EWUA’s use, and not aligned with the association’s 501 (c) (12) nonprofit obligations.

More importantly, adopting such a commitment without a formal policy risks creating a precedent that could affect multiple tank sites and impose longterm costs on all members. Given these concerns, many members believe the board should decline the proposed payment and instead begin work on a clear, comprehensive policy to guide any future requests involving private infrastructure. To safeguard the association’s legal and fiduciary responsibilities, the board should also obtain a full review from its legal counsel before adopting any such policy.