Amador County - A lawsuit disputing Amador Water Agency authority during the installation of a water pipeline is now public, exposing a longstanding and bitter feud and questioning the Agency’s judgment. In a guest editorial published online by the Amador Ledger Dispatch on November 3rd, Jackson property owner Ken Perano outlined his side of a dispute that stretches back to 2000. Perano is the last landowner to settle with the Amador Water Agency over easement issues related to the installation of the Amador Transmission Pipeline. The meat of the conflict is a dispute over property boundaries and a fence line that may or may not run along Perano’s true property line. The AWA’s surveyor established different boundary lines than two surveyors hired privately by Perano. Points of contention in establishing the property line are based on everything from original surveyor maps dating back to the late 1800’s to burnt charcoal buried in the earth, which may indicate the existence of an oak tree used in the original calculation. Perano claims his property line is in a different location, overlapping the area where the Water Agency initiated eminent domain. Perano claims the AWA trespassed on his property in order to build the pipeline, destroying “a gorgeous old heritage oak tree in the process.”

But Perano’s most damning condemnation is that the AWA stubbornly spent thousands to avoid a resolution. Perano’s editorial, which he released only a day before the Water Agency Board elections, was written to raise awareness of what he calls, “a waste of ratepayer money and an abuse of power.” “When a government agency can confiscate private property without due process we have a serious conflict that I have the obligation to fight,” said Perano. The AWA refused to accept a settlement of 12,300 dollars in 2006. “This was against the advice of (Amador Superior Court) Judge Susan Harlan,” Perano said. This led to a series of actions, including land surveys and water agency legal tactics, that ended up costing over $500,000 between January 2006 and October 2007-an average of about $23,000 per month, Perano said.

But AWA General Manager Jim Abercrombie, who has represented and advised the board throughout the dispute, says Perano unfortunately “didn’t tell the truth.” Abercrombie said the 500,000 is actually the total expenditure for all six or seven properties involved in eminent domain proceedings for the pipeline. Abercrombie says Perano complicated matters by filtering everything through his lawyers and spending $75,000 on two separate surveyors who found two separate findings. We had to get a court order just to get on his property to survey, said Abercrombie. “What (Perano) also wanted (and didn’t disclose) was that he demanded free water in perpetuity- we didn’t think our ratepayers would appreciate that,” said Abercrombie. The final court date in the lawsuit is scheduled for early next year. “I believe we have to stand up for our liberties. It goes beyond dollars and cents,” said Perano. Abercrombie said “the real regret here is that two reasonable folks should have been able to resolve this a long time ago.” Story by Alex Lane (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).