Clearlake council hears lengthy briefing on water services, Highlands election and road-utility conflicts

Clearlake officials spent a large portion of the Sept. 19 meeting discussing water-service coordination, a Highlands Water Company shareholder election and how shallow or undocumented utility infrastructure is complicating an 18-mile road-rehabilitation program.

City staff told the council a court has required a shareholders' election for Highlands Mutual (scheduled for Sept. 30) to resolve who is eligible to vote (shareholders were defined by property ownership within Highlands' boundary rather than by meter service). Staff said boundary discrepancies have created confusion because some properties served for years may not fall within the legally defined boundary. Staff identified a challenger slate of five people seeking to change the board: Dennis Darling, Ray Silva, Henry Bornstein, Denise LuSolo and Thomas DeWalt.

Separately, staff described coordination problems between the city's pavement program (about 18 miles of work grouped into three project areas) and utilities including Highlands Water and Golden State Water Company. Public works staff said the city prefers full-depth reclamation (FDR) as a long-term road-treatment to avoid repeated cuts, but many water lines and other utilities are much shallower than industry standards (staff cited examples as shallow as four inches beneath grade versus a typical three-foot standard). That shallow infrastructure raises the risk of damage during FDR and could require utilities to move or lower pipes, at significant cost and schedule impacts.

Staff said Golden State Water has declined a proposed agreement on coordinate treatments; that logic could force utilities to remove and replace infrastructure in a way that would increase costs and potentially push some road work into next year. Staff said Golden State indicated it may use the city's contractors for some work but declined other agreement terms.

Council members asked about investigation methods (ground-penetrating radar was used in some neighborhoods), meter-box relocations (staff said utilities are responsible for raising or lowering meter boxes when necessary) and the potential effect on customer rates. Residents at the meeting urged coordination to use grant funds where possible so improvements do not fall solely on ratepayers.

Staff also raised a broader funding opportunity: a November state ballot measure (referred to in the meeting as Proposition 4) that would create a large climate-resilience bond fund including wildfire and water-system investments; staff recommended reviewing the measure and considering whether to take a council position.

The council did not take a formal vote on structural consolidation of water systems; staff indicated they will return with further presentations and options for coordinating investments and pursuing grant funding.