Santa Clarita / Antelope Valley : District Battles City, State Over Road Costs : Finances: The water agency contends that it should not have to pay $1 million to relocate waterlines. A suit and countersuit are filed.

The Newhall County Water District is caught up in legal battles with city and state bodies whose roadwork projects have resulted in more than $1 million in waterline relocation costs.

The city expects the water district to pay the cost of relocating waterlines that are disturbed when the city tears up roadways.

Water district officials contend they aren’t required to subsidize road projects initiated by local governments or state agencies.

City officials say their authority overrides the water district’s and because the water district has no prior rights on land next to its facilities, the city can pass on construction costs. District officials argue that there are gray areas outlined in case law that allow them to challenge the city.

James Jinks, general manager of the water district, says that as a matter of principle the water district, which serves about 6,400 people in the communities of Pine Crest, Newhall and Castaic Lake, shouldn’t be expected to subsidize the infrastructure costs of Santa Clarita’s growth spurts. He chafes at the implication that the water district is responsible for paying for storm drains and culverts to improve drainage on properties next to the projects.

Robert Dahl, an attorney representing the water district, has found several examples of court rulings in favor of special districts over county and city governments.

The water district contends that state water codes give it broad rights to keep and maintain facilities under public roads that exceed the rights of local governments.

It is unclear whether the water district’s rights supersede the rights of the city, and both sides contend that case law favors their position.

The current lawsuit stems from road-widening projects on San Fernando and Soledad roads to help carry increasing numbers of commuters living in the Santa Clarita Valley. Water mains were relocated in places where the grade was lowered to widen the road, Jinks said.

Santa Clarita City Atty. Carl Newton says the water district is responsible for relocating its facility, and the lawsuit is an exercise of its rights under a utilities agreement signed by both sides in February, 1992, that allows for “future negotiations or by an action in a court” to decide who is responsible for relocation costs. Santa Clarita officials signed the document in protest in order for the work to be completed, Newton said.

Jinks said he signed the agreement to obtain the funds to complete the project because the water district couldn’t fund it otherwise. He said he also signed a similar utilities agreement with Caltrans.

Nonetheless, the practice of increasing the water district costs through projects only partially funded by other government agencies is unfair, Jinks contends.

“We always felt that after the work was done we could sit down, public board to public board, and iron this out,” said Jinks, who said no negotiations were sought by Santa Clarita officials.

The city tried unsuccessfully to enter into negotiations with the water district before filing the lawsuit, Newton said.

Santa Clarita officials filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 19 to force the water district to pay back about $200,000 for the relocation of water mains at the road projects.

The water district filed a countersuit against the city May 20, saying the city’s lawsuit was without merit in demanding repayment of the waterline relocation costs, Dahl said.

In a Caltrans case filed in July, 1992, the state highway agency is trying to recover construction costs for the two road projects, said Ken Keaton, a Caltrans engineer who worked on the project.

Jinks estimated that the water district’s expenses in the Caltrans project to be nearly $750,000, and says the water district is ready to challenge the Los Angeles County Public Works Department when a proposed bridge repair project on another section of San Fernando Road begins next year.

“My job is to defend our customers, and that’s what I’m going to do,” he said.