COEUR d’ALENE — When the city of Coeur d’Alene took over water service infrastructure from a private entity, it also took on decades of controversy because some of that infrastructure was outside city limits.

In an attempt to halt future controversy over which pieces of land outside city limits can use city water services, water superintendent Terry Pickel has proposed a policy overhaul. On Monday, Pickel presented his plan to the city’s Public Works Committee, comprised of Councilmen Woody McEvers, Dan English, and Dan Gookin.

“We’re getting more and more people coming in and challenging this,” Pickel told the committee. “Nothing has gone to court yet, but it’s coming if we don’t do something.”

In the 11 years Pickel has been with the city, he said at least 12 individuals who reside outside city limits have come into his office stating they have built a home and are ready for city water. However, with no proof their property has a right to such service, Pickel has had to turn down the request.

“It breaks my heart to tell them ‘sorry, we can’t help you,’ it’s hard to say no to them,” Pickel added.

Those requests, according to Pickel, will continue as the areas surrounding Coeur d’Alene expand. The intent of bringing the changes forward now, he said, is to make things easier on the city down the road by having a policy without any gray area.

Approximately 118 parcels of land, not within city limits, have been identified by Pickel as being potentially impacted by the changes. The most substantial changes would involve individuals who live on a property that borders an existing city water main.

Under current city regulations, Pickel said those property owners would have to provide proof of an agreement with Idaho Water — a private entity that installed a great deal of water infrastructure both inside and outside city limits in the 1970s. As property changed ownership over the decades, it has become harder and harder to establish that there was an initial agreement in place with Idaho Water, Pickel said.

The new regulations would end the requirement for proof and instead allow property owners the choice of getting their water from the city, as long as they sign a contract stating they would not provide any opposition should the city choose to annex the property.

“When they don’t want to be annexed, but want the services we provide, it makes it tough to be a good neighbor,” McEvers said.

English said although he sees both positives and negatives with the proposal, the matter obviously needs to go before the full council. The rest of the committee agreed, and voted unanimously in favor of bringing the proposed changes to the full council during its first meeting in March for a full debate and final approval.

After the meeting, The Press asked deputy city administrator Sam Taylor if the proposed changes could negatively impact city residents. Taylor said the changes would be positive because they would add more revenue for the services, which go toward improving and replacing water infrastructure, without negatively impacting service.