EID directors say they need land to place water line; owner balks at sale.
By Cathy Locke -- Bee Staff Writer
David Eggerton, the district's associate counsel, said other easements for the Pleasant Oak Main replacement have been acquired through negotiations with property owners. But he said the district was unable to reach an agreement with Scott Proud to install a portion of the new line along a dirt road on Proud's property in the Pleasant Valley area.
"It is critical to public health and safety," Eggerton told board members Monday, adding that delays in replacing the existing water main could result in "serious injury and possibly death."But Proud said his family would face similar risks if the new pipeline were installed on his land.
The board approved an emergency declaration in September 2004 to expedite repair of a 5.5-mile section of the water main, which supplies water to about 16,000 accounts, or about 50,000 people, from the Sierra Springs area on the east to Cameron Park on the west.
Construction began last summer and is scheduled for completion this year.
Eggerton noted that five breaks have occurred in the pipeline in the past three years, resulting in water outages, environmental damage and approximately $100,000 in cleanup costs per incident.
The breaks were attributed to deficiencies in the Techite pipe installed in 1976-77 by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The fiberglass-type material later was determined to be unsuitable for water lines, and in 1996 the district was awarded $690,000 in a class-action lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Eggerton said the district can't construct the new pipeline within the existing alignment because the water main can't be shut down for more than 24 hours at a time. To avoid damage to the fragile Techite pipe during construction, a separate alignment was chosen, he said.
The existing main runs through a vineyard south of Proud's property, but district staff members said putting the new line through the vineyard would require removing seven rows, or a 60-foot-wide swath, of grapevines.
An alternative alignment near the property line would require removing heritage oak trees, Eggerton said, whereas an easement through Proud's property would allow the pipeline to be installed in the roadway.
He said the district had offered Proud the appraised value for the easement.
But Proud said if a break occurred in the new line, the road would channel water into his home.
His attorney, David Becker, said, "We're not here to get in the way of the Pleasant Oak Main project. We'd just like to keep (the pipeline) on the side of the hill it's on now so we don't become the potential flood victims."
Becker challenged the district's finding of "necessity" for the eminent domain proceedings. He argued that the route through Proud's property may be the preferred alignment, but other options are available.
"A design advantage doesn't justify a constitutional taking (of property)," he said.
