CLEARLAKE >> Ongoing challenges posed by city of Clearlake’s water provider Highlands Mutual Water were addressed by Mayor David Claffey on October 1.
“While the reform slate did not succeed, (in the Sept. 30 shareholder election) what the community has learned about Highlands’ water system–rates, fire system, grant funding, and expansion policies–has been extremely valuable,” the Mayor said in an email, forwarded through City Hall. “The Highlands’ board are stewards of an essential service in our community and, to meet the wants and needs of Clearlake residents, it’s critical to have safe and reliable water infrastructure.
And he added, “Residents especially want more housing, medical offices and retail and we are working hard to bring them to Clearlake. I’m ready to work with the board to turn the page and build a stronger, more transparent partnership, grounded in fairness, collaboration, and a shared vision for a thriving Clearlake.”
In response, Highlands’ attorney Tina Wallis said the following in an email, “Highlands looks forward to a collaborative and constructive relationship with the city. Highlands supports growth in our community, which the Highlands team recently explained to city staff members during a meeting about the Airport Area Redevelopment.
“However, there is a legal process for discretionary approvals and a key requirement of this process is multiple technical studies, one of which is to ensure there is adequate water to supply for new development without negatively impacting existing residents and businesses,” Wallis added. “Upon receipt of the legally required technical report, Highlands will analyze its ability to supply water to any proposed development. Unfortunately, without this technical report, it is impossible for Highlands to determine if it can supply water to any proposed development, if the proposed development will trigger the need for additional infrastructure, and how the proposed development will pay for any infrastructure needs caused by the new development.”
Yet Wallis responded to the city of Clearlake’s grievances on September 30, and pointed out it was a landslide win for the Highlands Water Company’s board of directors’ shareholder vote. They defeated the City of Clearlake candidates who were put forward to oppose those Highlands nominated. “The shareholders of Highlands Water Company resoundingly rejected the city of Clearlake and their partners’ reform slate of proposed board members in the September 30, board of directors election,” Wallis said.
Speaking on the Highlands effort, Wallis said, “Highlands wants to thank the entire community of shareholders and supporters who worked tirelessly to ensure the community had accurate and complete information about water services in Clearlake.”
The final vote count was 1083 votes supporting Highlands existing board of directors to 203 votes supporting the City’s candidates. “Highlands Water Company shareholders sent a loud and clear message about wanting to keep their water services in the hands of the experts,” Wallis stressed.
However, posted on the city of Clearlake’s website, under Clearlake Rising, Progress & Promise, post explained, Highlands, along with Konocti County Water and Golden State Water Company imposes high rates on a disadvantaged community.
Highlands’ rates are ranked in the worst category for affordability by the state, and their board operates with little transparency and accountability to their shareholders, the site reads. It went on, that failing pipelines, tanks and treatment plants, requires costly replacements, and have failed to acquire grant funding, placing all infrastructure costs on taxpayers, and frequent water quality issues requires “boil water” advisories for existing customers.
Also, Highlands serves most existing commercial, and some residences located in areas with planned growth in both sectors. But its aging infrastructure often fails to support new development, particularly for commercial development, the city’s post contends. The criticism went on that Highlands failing infrastructure, struggles to meet fire flow requirements for commercial development and cannot adequately provide drinking water for new residential or commercials projects. The city’s post further exclaimed that Highlands’ solution to their outdated infrastructure is to have developers upgrade it. While they typically fund project specific upgrades, it is not common practice for developers to mend issues caused by deferred maintenance of existing infrastructure.
However, Wallis noted, the city has a General Plan that establishes the limits of development over a 20-year time horizon. “General Plans must identify the infrastructure required to support the development projected in the General Plan,” she said. “The city must then conduct a study and establish a fee to offset the cost of new or additional infrastructure, such as roads, water supply, and wastewater, necessary to support the growth projected in the city’s General Plan.”
She went on that Highlands’ approach is consistent with California law – new development pays its own way so that existing Highlands’ shareholders aren’t burdened with funding infrastructure impacts caused by new development. “As for fire flow, the California Fire Code says the developer is responsible for ensuring adequate fire flow,” she added.
