The residents of Martin County have endured enough—especially when it comes to their water infrastructure. In a county where water infrastructure failures are a painful routine, the latest crisis—the budget deficit caused by the stalled raw water intake project—feels like a betrayal.

Nearly four years after the project’s groundbreaking, the water district is staring down the barrel of a $427,000 operating deficit compounded by $700,000 in unbudgeted spending just to keep water flowing.

Now, ratepayers are at risk of footing the bill for a mess they did not make—and they should not.

This issue is not theoretical. It is measurable in rental pump bills, diesel fuel costs and broken timelines.

What began as a $3.5 million infrastructure upgrade to the raw water intake and treatment plant has become a millstone dragging the Martin County Water District deeper into fiscal instability.

The Martin County Water District and Judge/Executive Lon Lafferty are right to demand accountability. When public agencies accept federal or state grant money, they also assume the duty to shepherd responsibly. Somehow, instead of stewarding the project, those responsible allowed it to be marred by inertia.

Six years after the grant award, the work remains incomplete. The system it is should improve is staying afloat—literally—with rental pumps and emergency fuel.

That is not infrastructure improvement. That is triage.

It is a cruel irony that the grant intended to stabilize Martin County’s water supply has instead destabilized the district’s finances—so severely that a rate increase may now be on the table.

If the Kentucky Public Service Commission ultimately forces such a move, it will not be a correction. Instead, it will be a condemnation of the most vulnerable in a county that has long struggled to supply safe, affordable public drinking water.

Let us be clear: the Martin County Water Board and its current leadership did not create this crisis. They have worked diligently—miraculously at times—to keep the water flowing while grappling with spiraling costs. Their decision to engage legal counsel is both unfortunate and necessary.

Courts are often the only venue that separates truth from blame.

A verdict is not all the district needs. It needs oversight, transparency and reform.

Agencies entrusted with managing infrastructure grants must be held to the same standards as those tasked with executing the work.

If the Big Sandy Area Development District or any other entity did not do their duty to administer this project efficiently and on schedule, then that failure must come to the front—and bring compensation. It must not be papered over with higher utility bills for working families.

The right thing should be the bare minimum.