Let’s see now…..

LDPCSD RES 95-4 (May 15^th, 1995) correctly identifies the property to be annexed in the first paragraph of the document and references that it be annexed into the LDPCSD according to Resolution 94-3 (June 20, 1994) 11 months earlier. (I recall reviewing much material including metes and bounds survey, map, and documentation of meeting Environmental issues and proper notification – seemed to be one of the better annexation approvals but the project was abandoned also.) A reading of this particular resolution is interesting in that it appears to first REQUEST AN ANNEXATION at the beginning of the resolution but then continues as though it had already been approved by LAFCO at the end.

“T Corners Land Limited be annexed to the LDPCSD in accordance with Resolution 94-3?”

WHAT IS RES 94-3? Let’s take a look – (Please notice there are helpful page numbers!)

OK, any deals with MID (Merced Irrigation District) are postponed for later and when annexed but check this out:

“…shall have the same rights and duties as if said property had been a part of the District upon its original formation…..”??????

Is this annexation now subject to subdivision CC&Rs? Will it pay annual assessments to the Lake Don Pedro Owners Association? Be subject to a violations committee notice? etc. NO. Then how could it possibly have the same duties as if a subdivision lot legally entitled to Merced River water because it is within the long established boundaries of the residential subdivision which is also the POU under WL11395?

When the district was formed (PER CPUC JANUARY 1981 approval of the transfer of facilities and assets to the new LDPCSD) the State of California clearly identified the SERVICE BOUNDARIES as the SIERRA HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION which would later become the Lake Don Pedro subdivision. Heck, that decision even stated the new LDPCSD (and its mandatory customers of the LDP subdivision) would not inherit previous line extension and water agreement deals made, or proposed to be made, between Sierra Highlands and these other outside POU property owners.

It also appears as though the MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) was prepared to obtain water rights with yet another annexation into the LDPCSD. Why is it that the MID, holder of WL11395, will permit annexations into the LDPCSD service area which their license clearly could not serve without an expensive groundwater substitution program? Did they know something was coming? Seems to me the MID was receiving a VALUABLE WATER RIGHT from the annexed property owner yet passing the “consideration” or payment for that benefit (future water service by the LDPCSD) totally on to the innocent MR WECs of the LDP subdivision by making them financially responsible for developing the “ALTERNATE SOURCE of WATER” necessary for that development. See what I mean? MID gets a water license (Counties get to permit and tax the development) owner gets to land develop with expensive groundwater, and the innocent property owners of the subdivision get to pay for the whole deal – forever!

BUT WAIT! The owners of the subdivision would never approve such a thing…..RE-ENTER co-conspirator PETE KAMPA who will use his expertise and political connections to exploit a legitimate State wide emergency drought to secure state and federal grant money to develop groundwater wells with which to create a massive “alternate source of water” (under guise of assisting the already decades old exploited MR WECs through the drought) for the thousands of acres of LAFCO ANNEXED LANDS he assisted in setting up 20 years ago! Humm, sweet scam there Mr. Pete you are one piece of work.

All the players in this despicable GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION SCAM receive an obvious benefit while MR WECs of the subdivision are surreptitiously stuck with an ever-increasing perpetual financial liability for as long as they own their Lake Don Pedro subdivision property.

Oops. Back to the resolutions.

But what about that other RESOLUTION referenced in 95-4 in the second paragraph? Remember, the other LAFCO RESOLUTION? First annexation in accordance with RES 94-4, but then 95-4 also references LAFCO’s March 28 1995, RES 95-1 determinations and approving the proposed annexation to the LDPCSD of territory described in Exhibit A..

So, first 95-4 takes us back 11 months to 94-3 on June 20, 1994 and then again back to March 28 1995 for 95-1 which contains the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION APPROVED by LAFCO, and then (THIS IS THE SURPRISE):

95-4 STATES:

“WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has authorized this Board to approve this annexation without notice and hearing and without an election”.

but wait! IF 95-1 states the terms and conditions of annexation approved by LAFCO, shouldn’t we take a peek at that?

ding, ding, ding….our studio audience says “HELL YES!”

LAFCO RESOLUTION 95-1

OK approving RES 94-1 which is? (BELOW)

OK, RES 94-1 must be a LAFCO RESOLUTION NAME, but why name it 94-1 if there is no corresponding LDPCSD RES 94-1 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION?

NOW WE KNOW PROPERTY IS ONLY 20.01 acres, it is located in Tuolumne County, in the LDPCSD SOI, signed by all property owners within territory, [There it is!, LAFCO assigned the name “Annexation No. 94-1 to the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District” – so it was a LAFCO resolution, right? But why 94-1?],

and approves an unattached “Exhibit A” and designates the LDPCSD as “conducting Authority” authorized to

“conduct proceedings for the Annexation

AFTER

proper notice and hearing subject to the following condition of approval:

The Lake Don Pedro Community Services District

shall provide water service

to all future development

within the annexation territory.”

WOW. Talk about a “blank check”!!! Approving only a portion of “territory” but agreeing to all other land as well!

How did such an important term and condition become the District’s RES 95-4 statement: