Why a regional water district? For residents alone, it comes down to a fire hydrant.

After a blaze at 5192 Woodlands Drive in the town of Dunkirk on July 8, crews were unable to stop the hydrant from leaking. Town residents in the area of the incident then began seeing water build in their yards, which increased the mosquito population.

In an effort to get the apparatus fixed, they called town leaders who had no control over getting the hydrant fixed. That job, according to Supervisor Richard Purol, was for the city of Dunkirk.

Who knows if it was a priority for the city. Besides that, there was probably a number of layers for residents with concerns to go to: the town, city of Dunkirk leaders, city administrators, its department heads and its workers.

Wouldn’t it be easier – and more efficient – for just one water system for the region? Status quo believers tell you the current system is best. That’s typical political babble.

We live in the 21st century of cell phones, HD TVs and other gadgets, but our government is set up as though we were driving a horse and buggy. It’s unacceptable – except to those who think it is the only way.

Costs, we understand, will go up in a water district. Without the district, they will go up just as much – and likely more.

Even if the town fire hydrant is fixed.