IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT

In the January 22 Sierra Sun article, "Royal Gorge Impacts Cross County Lines", Royal Gorge LLC's project director Mike Livak is quoted as saying the proposed development may be annexed into the utility district (Donner Summit Public Utility District), a Nevada County entity, across county lines. This involves some complications.

One wonders what the rationale behind this is- Royal Gorge LLC's Placer County lands, which they are supposedly confining their project to, all lie  within the boundaries or sphere of influence of Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) (with the exception of Wilderness Camp, which Placer County at one time deemed "undevelopable"). Royal Gorge is looking to SLCWD to provide water for their development, so why would they want to bypass SLCWD's sewage services too?  As we all know, SLCWD's sewage is processed by the DSPUD plant- our district in fact has contractual rights to processing. Why should Royal Gorge LLC's sewage, which will be generated in our district, be treated any differently? (no puns intended, really)

Precisely why is Royal Gorge trying to leapfrog over SLCWD, the logical district, in order to join a district in another county? Well, here's a first go-  the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)'s Executive Officer's monthly report, dated January 9, 2008, has this to say about annexation of Royal Gorge into DSPUD: "The issue is complex, as the sphere of influence for DSPUD (which was jointly adopted by both Nevada and Placer LAFCos) specifies that an annexation to the district within the applicable timeframe would require a study of governance alternatives and service provision in the area.  This requirement was established in view of the joint agency use of the sewer treatment plant." 

A translation of LAFCoese is in order here- that means SLCWD's and DSPUD's delivery of all services would be studied, and perhaps a merger of SLCWD and DSPUD would be considered. How would this affect us?  Well, for one thing, property owners would no longer be allowed to vote for the water board. Our special voting rights would be taken away, and only full time residents of the area would be allowed to vote- leaving the majority of Serene Lakes homeowners with taxation without representation.

Further, say Royal Gorge LLC convincingly made the case that a portion of the infrastructure needs for their development also benefitted current homeowners- we might get stuck with new, non-deductable Mello-Roos bonds- more taxes we didn't get to vote on.

One thing a merged district wouldn't do- it wouldn't make more water available on the Summit.  However, perhaps a merged district might be more amenable to raising  a dam on Van Norden Meadow, something very much still on Royal Gorge LLC's backburner.

Oh, and here's an interesting fact. At some point homeowners down Cisco Grove, and Rainbow Lodge way may be compelled to join DSPUD, as their septic systems fail.  If that happens it is highly likely DSPUD will take over water provision for the area as well- and remember Rainbow Springs, where Royal Gorge LLC trucks away all that water that should flow to the South Yuba River- looks like that would be DSPUD's responsibility too.

Well, saying things are complicated is like saying ice is cold--and things could get a lot more complex if Royal Gorge starts pushing both counties to tinker with the existing special districts, in order to gain some advantage for their proposed development. 

The way I see it, SLCWD works pretty well for all of us in the district--so if it ain't broke-don't fix it!  Especially when the "fix" might end up costing us loss of voting for an elected water board, and might raise our taxes in the bargain.