Sometimes what you don’t know will hurt you.

An agreement signed in 1998 between three Twin Lakes’ homeowners and the United States Forest Service now keeps the homeowners from receiving any relief from the USFS following an Aug. 17 mudslide.

The homeowners claim they were made to sign the agreement under duress and didn’t really understand the legalities it contained. They did not acquire legal representation at the time.

The document is an easement agreement that the Forest Service offered to the homeowners in 1998 so that the homeowners could acquire grant funding to build a flood control diversion following a mudslide that occurred in 1997. The 1997 mudslide caused damage to homes and property. The hope was that the diversion would help prevent such damages in the event of a future silde.

The diversion needed to be built on Forest Service land that sits above the private, residential neighborhood, hence the need for the easement agreement. So the homeowners at the time signed the agreement, which freed up a $95,000 grant from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Easement holders, Mono County and the NRCS built the diversion channel, according to the Forest Service. It has been sufficient for diverting annual spring runoffs ever since.

However, torrential rains that fell on Aug. 17 this year proved to be too much for the channel, and mud and debris made its way over the channel’s sides and flowed freely down the natural channel and into the residential area. Damages of up to $30,000 were inflicted upon residents such as Lawrence Schwartz, whose home and vehicle were filled with mud.

Clean up has been underway ever since, but now with winter well on its way, the homeowners are now concerned about the prohibitive costs of repairing the diversion channel, and the continued damages from runoff that could occur on their properties if it is not repaired.

Upon review of the easement agreement, the homeowners have discovered that the Forest Service has zero legal obligations to help them even though the mud flowed down from Forest Service land. By signing the document, the residents gave up any rights they may have had to force the Forest Service to help, and they feel like they’ve been duped.

“We signed a paper for an easement because we thought it would get the work done,” said Reuben Brasser, one of the three homeowners who signed back in 1998.

Schwartz pointed out that when the first diversion was built it was to accommodate the Forest Service boundary, not physics. Schwartz told The Sheet that Brasser, now in his 80s, was under the impression that the homeowners were simply responsible for checking on the diversion channel and making sure it was kept clear.

“It’s my understanding that it was a take it or leave it situation,” Schwartz said over the phone on Wednesday. “The residents didn’t like it but they didn’t feel like they had a choice.”

Not only are the homeowners on the hook to clean up, but according to the agreement document they also pay $45 a year on their tax rolls to have the privilege of the easement. The agreement is valid for 30 years and is transferrable when any of the homes are sold, which is why Schwartz, who did not purchase his property until 2007, is bound by the agreement as well.

According to the agreement, “The Grantees [homeowners] assume all liabilities associated with this authorization and has an affirmative duty to protect from damage the land, property and interests of the United States. The Grantees shall save, indemnify and hold the United States harmless from any liability for damages or injury resulting from the Grantees’ use or occupancy of National Forest System lands …”

A letter from the Forest Service dated Sept. 21 responded to inquiries from the residents concerning the Forest Service’s help in reconstruction of the flood control diversion and cleanup of the mudslide.

“The holders of the easement have sole responsibility to repair, maintain and operate the flood control diversion,” according to the letter, which was signed by Acting Forest Supervisor Rebecca Nourse.

“If the easement holders desire to enlarge or realign the flood control diversion, they will have to make application to the Forest Service to modify the existing easement. If repairs can be made within the existing easement, the Forest Service will need to review and approve reconstruction plans in advance to assure that any proposal is authorized by the easement. If assistance is needed in engineering and rebuilding the flood control diversion, the local NRCS office and Mono County may be able to provide that assistance.

“The Forest Service is not responsible for cleanup of the mudslide on private property. While the damage that occurred was unfortunate, the Forest Service has no authority to expend appropriated funds to repair damage to private property that resulted from an act of nature.”

The FS did provide a debris disposal area on national forest land, for which the residents were thankful, but it wasn’t enough, which is why they came before the Mono County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. The County does not own the property or have any responsibility for the diversion channel, but it does have a road at the bottom of the mudslide area, which was affected in August.

Mono County Director of Risk Management and Facilities, Rita Sherman explained to the Board that while reconstruction of the diversion would take larger equipment than the County possesses, the agency could look at pushing the debris out of the channel and building a wall that may prevent more water and debris from entering the residential area and may also help divert spring runoff until the residents can provide a more permanent fix to the diversion.

Sherman estimated the cost for the County to do this work would be $25,000. However, she pointed, the residents would have to agree not to hold the County liable for anything that may not be able to be contained by the temporary fix.

Schwartz said the homeowners would have no problem holding the County harmless if the County were willing to help.

“We need to help and protect these citizens,” said Supervisor Tim Hansen. “What was done in 1997 failed and needs to be redone.”

“The County should reach out to the Forest Service on the resident’s behalf,” added Supervisor Vikki Bauer. “We all should take initiative to help.”

The County agreed to try to reach out to District Ranger Mike Crawley to discuss the issue. When The Sheet attempted to contact Crawley on Wednesday, his voicemail stated that he would be out of the office for most of the month of November.

The Board did not approve or deny the $25,000 assistance at this time.

(Photo courtesy The Schwartzs)