I am the last landowner to settle with the Amador Water Agency over easement issues related to the installation of the Amador Transmission Pipeline. In the end, it is likely the water agency will spend over half a million dollars resolving a conflict they could have settled for just over $12,000 back in 2006.

It didn't have to be that way. I was willing to settle with the agency early on. But the water agency refused to work with me. As a result, the agency has squandered countless ratepayer dollars on legal actions and attorneys' fees and cost me and my family undue stress and well over a hundred thousand dollars for lawyers and surveyors.

Anyone objectively reviewing all of the facts of my case would have to come to one conclusion: The Amador Water Agency has grossly abused its obligation to responsibly manage its ratepayer dollars, and it has abused my family's rights by taking part of our land without due process.

Why am I going public with this information now? Our ordeal is nearly over, but the underlying issues are far larger. They ought to concern anyone who cares about property rights, abuse of eminent domain and responsible, accountable local government. You need to know about them before you cast your vote for water agency director. The agency's current board has allowed this fiasco to continue.

Here's what happened, in brief:

Beginning in 2000, the Amador Water Agency and I disagreed about issues related to routing the pipeline through my property, the location of my property boundaries, and guarantying that construction of the pipeline would not destroy our existing springs that we depend on for domestic and agricultural use. After cutting short negotiations with me, the agency initiated eminent domain proceedings against me in January 2006.

At a settlement conference that April, I made a formal offer to settle our dispute for a total of $12,300. Against the advice of Judge Susan Harlan, the agency rejected my offer.

Instead, in May 2006, the water agency took a portion of my land without due process and began to construct part of the pipeline there. The land had been in my family for over 100 years.

That led to a series of actions, including land surveys and water agency legal tactics that made the case more costly for everybody. Water agency documents show that its legal expenses related to three pipeline easement cases, including mine, totaled over $505,000 between January 2006 and October 2007-an average of about $23,000 per month.

Finally, in June 2008, the water agency and I settled part of my case. I will receive about $80,000 as a result ($62,500 plus costs and interest). The rest of the legal dispute will likely result in me receiving well over an additional $100,000. I'm not making a profit in either case. The settlements will simply cover the costs I have incurred fighting the Water Agency's unjust actions against me.

Based on water agency documents, I believe the agency will have spent more than $500,000 pursuing the cases against me by the time we're all done, plus whatever it has cost them for surveys, appraisals, and staff time. It's incredible, considering that I was willing to settle the matter in full for $12,300 in April 2006.

This shouldn't happen anywhere, to anyone. No agency should abuse its power and waste ratepayer money like this. Your vote for a new water agency director can ensure it doesn't happen here again.