The Preston City Council unanimously rejected a lawyer’s request to record a formal easement and declined a related request for two free water hookups tied to a recently installed water line on private property.

Adam McKenzie, representing the Hardcastle family, told the council that the property had long been served by a water line the family and the city considered to have prescriptive easement status, but he argued the city had expanded use by replacing an older 6‑inch pipe with a 12‑inch main and by installing an additional line along 8 East that crosses Hardcastle land. McKenzie told the council the expansion and new installation created a legal and practical issue and that his clients had lost planting opportunities and lease income because of the construction.

“You've expanded the use, which, is an expansion which, I think negates the argument of a prescriptive use because you've expanded it,” McKenzie said, describing the change from a six‑inch to a 12‑inch pipe and a newly installed line along Eighth East that he said had not existed previously.

Council members and city staff discussed whether a prescriptive easement had been established by long use and whether recording a written easement or granting compensation was appropriate. City staff and council members emphasized uncertainty over whether the new line lies inside the city right‑of‑way for 8 East or on private property and the potential precedent of granting hookups or cash for one property and not others.

Council President Brent Dodge moved to deny the Hardcastles’ request for a recorded easement and to deny the demand for hookups. The motion was seconded and approved by unanimous vote. Dodge had earlier expressed concern about committing future councils to free hookups and noted recent water conservation restrictions; other councilors cited past problems from granting similar hookups and the city's need to protect culinary water resources.

Council discussion included consideration of whether the city should instead record a notice asserting a prescriptive easement; one councilor suggested instructing the city attorney to file such a notice for future clarity, but the formal motion before the council was to deny the Hardcastle requests, which carried.

The council’s denial preserves the status quo and leaves open possible future negotiation or litigation; staff indicated further property‑level investigation would be necessary to show whether the line lies inside a road right‑of‑way and to document any claim of prescriptive use.