In Cayuga County, as in other places, it is common for towns and villages to take meter readings of their residents' water usage. Sewer and water bills are sent out based on these readings. But if for some reason a meter cannot be read, an estimated bill is used. Any needed adjustments are made to subsequent bills after a reading is taken.

But let's say a certain townsman is never home or for some other reason does not have his meter read for a period of three years. During those years, let's say his water use changed. Perhaps he bought a swimming pool. Perhaps he got married and had kids. Perhaps a run-in with a bad slice of cheese caused him to utilize his facilities much more frequently for a spell. But whatever the reason, let's say his water usage was in reality much greater than what was estimated.

Be rest assured, when the meter is finally read and he gets his adjusted bill, he will be forced to pay the difference. He will not be able to argue that he paid the bill in good faith and should therefore not have to pay for what he used. His town will insist upon getting its money.

So we should not feel badly for these towns now that Cayuga County is trying to collect the difference in cost between the estimated bills that were paid by the towns and the actual cost of these towns' participation in the county's health care consortium. Granted, the county treasurer (David Farrell) should not have waited three years to send the adjusted bills. And the county Legislature definitely should have noticed what was going on sooner and taken corrective action. On the county's end, there is certainly no excuse for what happened.

But none of what happened changes the fact that certain towns and villages in the county received services that they did not pay for in full. Now they expect the rest of the taxpayers of the county to foot the bill for them. This should not happen. And legally it cannot happen.

According to the county resolution that formed the consortium, the participating towns and villages are responsible for paying all costs. With no other agreements between the participating municipalities and the county, this resolution is the only basis for settling any dispute.

However, these municipalities were warned in the late 1980s that the consortium arrangement could pose problems. Auditors at the Office of the State Comptroller warned that the towns should formulate written agreements with the county defining the responsibilities of each side and the process for resolving disputes.

Yet these agreements were never made.

Because of this, the towns have no legal argument to justify their refusal to pay. So the county's conciliatory offer of forgiving 10 percent of what was owed and allowing the rest to be paid off over a period of time was more than generous. The consortium participants should have accepted that agreement when it was offered and put this whole thing to rest.

Schuster's column appears Mondays in The Citizen. He can be reached at yetti539@hotmail.com