UNEASY IN SERENE LAKES?

In an earlier piece, I stated that Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) relies on easements to carry on its normal business of protecting our water supply in Serene Lakes, and providing water to customers. Royal Gorge LLC, as you know, owns the lake bottom, the dam, and much of the green belt. As a point of clarification, SLCWD does own the narrow strip of land in Lake Serena where the intake pipe is. The pipe doesn't extend far out into the lake (or deep), which may present a problem in the future, as the district finds out more about the impact of our amazingly thick ice in winter on the ability to draw water.

Other operations involving the lake are carried out under easements.  Delineating exactly what kind of easements are involved could keep property lawyers very, very busy. You see, SLCWD doesn't operate under any written agreement/license/easement with Royal Gorge LLC, but, rather, performs their business of providing our water just as they always have. That is no cause for worry, as there is more than one type of easement-- here, where SLCWD has been carrying on operations (pardon the invocation of legalese) "openly, notoriously, continually, and for a period of 5 years" (and then some!), an argument may be made that SLCWD has a prescriptive easement, which is a very nice thing to have. Of course, Royal Gorge LLC, or anyone they might sell their operations to in the future, could argue that SLCWD doesn't, and end up costing our district a whole lot of money to keep doing what they've always done. 

One might, at this point, think SLCWD should just get permission from Royal Gorge LLC in writing to keep on doing what they're doing-- no muss, no fuss, right?  Not exactly. First off, that prescriptive easement, if SLCWD has one, is a lot stronger than a mere license, as the owner of the lake bottom can't revoke it at will. And, if SLCWD  were to have to rely on licenses/permission, and have to go hat in hand to Royal Gorge LLC to take actions to protect the greenbelt, in order to protect the water quality, or to seek an extension to put an intake pipe deeper in the lake, then Royal Gorge LLC (or subsequent owner), would have the ability to hold the district (and all of us) over the barrel to, perhaps, extract conditions that might not be favorable to SLCWD as a water supplier-- shall we call it watermail?

In my mind, this situation cries out for the exercise of eminent domain. SLCWD is a public agency, providing water, and needs to have not only access, but control over all elements that affect our water supply. Early on there were indications that the present owner of the lake bottom was unwilling to negotiate the sale of the lakes for a fair market value because they wished to use it as some sort of "bargaining chip" in procuring water from SLCWD (source: old SLCWD minutes). I find that thought odious, as SLCWD's only consideration here should be the maintenance and provision of water to customers in a fair, equitable way-- not negotiations with developers, whose interests could possibly be adverse to the health of the water supply.

There's an even more compelling reason for SLCWD to use its powers to take the lake bottom and shores in eminent domain (paying fair market value, of course). I've wondered why Royal Gorge LLC is so adamant about wanting to keep the lake in private ownership, and I think I've figured out one of their reasons.  Royal Gorge LLC had proposed, as one of their water supply alternatives, raising the dam on Lake Dulzura.  This would cause a long period of inundation of parts of the greenbelt, which Royal Gorge LLC owns, and some private lakeside property. Private property owners would object, and could seek to enjoin raising the dam under various legal theories, but unless SLCWD can demonstrate how raising the dam will harm water quality, by damaging the greenbelt/filter, excess sedimentation/turbidity/ damage to habitat, the owner of the lake/greenbelt can just thumb their nose, and say, "so sue me."

SLCWD has a duty to provide us safe, clean water year round. They should not have to worry about seeking legal advice, at great expense, every time they want to conduct operations to protect our water supply, and provide our water. Until they acquire the lake, bottom, sides, and dam, we should all be "Uneasy in Serene Lakes."