A multimillion-dollar plan to refurbish Moraine State Park’s failing water lines has riled some residents in the neighboring borough of Prospect, and we can’t blame them for their anger.

As part of the $3.2 million project, some residents — more than 200 property owners — could be required to contribute financially. That requirement would take the form of a mandatory connection ordinance forcing homes along the new pipeline’s path to connect, paying hefty installation fees and taking on monthly service charges in the process.

Lost in all of this is any explanation of why only certain property owners should be singled out to help finance the refurbishment of an already-publicly-funded state park.

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources already would contribute $800,000 in state money to the project. Those are tax dollars. Why should 205 property owners in Prospect be required to pay twice for this work — particularly when the park is the primary impetus behind the water project?

The comments of borough council member Mary Harmon, who has called the system “basically a gift” to borough residents, don’t help sell the idea.

Yes, the potential for greater fire protection and lower home insurance premiums because of fire hydrants installed as part of the project are good things.

But for those benefits, hundreds of residents would be required to pay thousands of dollars in one-time fees, and take on monthly water bills that amount to hundreds of dollars each year.

That’s not a gift. That’s paying for service improvements which might — repeat, might — save money on other, related services. Perhaps that’s a gift from the perspective of those who stand to reap potential benefits from this work without contributing so much as a penny.

It may well be that public water is in the best interests of Prospect. But so far there’s been no explanation of any long-term vision or plan for the borough that would be aided by this work.

There’s also been no explanation of why selective, mandatory connections are the best way to subsidize the project.

The current reasoning appears to be: “well, we need money for the work, and the water line runs right by your property.” Unsurprisingly, that’s not good enough for residents with their own water wells facing the prospect a government order to help pay for the project.

Isn’t there a more even-handed — dare we say, fair — way to do this?