Game Changer! Citizens For Clean Water Files Lawsuit Against State Water Board
SewerWatch is first to report that Citizens For Clean Water -- a non-profit group comprised of Los Osos citizens and the Los Osos Community Services District -- filed an (amended* version of their) lawsuit against the Central Coast Water Quality Control Board.
The legal action is sure to dominate the Los Osos sewer project discussion for months, if not years.
Attorney Shaunna Sullivan, of Sullivan & Associates, filed the petition, dated July 2, 2009, in Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.
In the 36-page brief, Sullivan argues that the enforcement actions that were issued by the CCWQCB in late 2005, and call for up to $5,000 a day fines against 46 randomly selected homeowners, and over $6 million in fines for the LOCSD, due to delays in building a community-wide sewer system, are "illegal, unnecessary, and unprecedented," and called the Water Board's actions "arbitrary and capricious."
The petition asks the courts to vacate the orders.
The "Cease and Desist Orders" against the 46 property owners could force them to be fined out of their homes if a sewer system isn't on-line by January 1, 2011.
Furthermore, in a potential bombshell in the 30-year-old Los Osos sewer saga, the lawsuit also challenges the very law that has led to the development of a sewer project in the first place for the community of nearly 15,000.
In her brief, Sullivan writes, "Petitioners contend that due to irregularities by the Agencies, the version of Resolution 83-13, which the RWQCB now seeks to enforce, was not properly adopted by the RWQCB or the (State Water Resources Control Board)," and adds that the records pertaining to adoption of Resolution 83-13 are "irregular, incomplete, and inconsistent."
Resolution 83-13 was adopted by the RWQCB in 1983, and made it illegal for Los Osos property owners within the "Prohibition Zone" -- most, but not all of Los Osos -- to continue to discharge from their septic tanks, thus necessitating an alternative wastewater disposal method, and, to date, the only alternative the RWQCB said they will approve, is a community-wide sewer system.
If the CCW lawsuit is successful, and Resolution 83-13 is ruled "invalid," there will no longer be a legal mandate for the town to stop using its septic systems, and a community-wide sewer system would, at least temporarily, be unnecessary.
Additionally, the lawsuit also argues, "Petitioners seek to enforce an important public right affecting the public and interest and will confer a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons which entitles Petitioners reimbursement for attorneys' fees and cost..."
In an e-mail, CCW spokesperson, Gail McPherson, wrote, "The (Water Board) will have 60 days to reply. The trial will likely be in the Fall."
In their press release, CCW added, “This action finally brings the long nightmare of water board enforcement in front of the courts,” said one of plaintiffs in the case.
SewerWatch will continue to follow this developing story.
###
[*Clarification, July 12, 2009: Although the brief sent to SewerWatch is dated July 2, 2009, and the headline in the CCW press release reads, "Los Osos Lawsuit ask courts to remove unfair water board enforcement from individual homeowners," the lawsuit is an "amended" version of a lawsuit CCW lawsuit filed in 2007, according to an e-mail from McPherson. "Finally we will go before a judge in a trial," she wrote.]
The legal action is sure to dominate the Los Osos sewer project discussion for months, if not years.
Attorney Shaunna Sullivan, of Sullivan & Associates, filed the petition, dated July 2, 2009, in Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.
In the 36-page brief, Sullivan argues that the enforcement actions that were issued by the CCWQCB in late 2005, and call for up to $5,000 a day fines against 46 randomly selected homeowners, and over $6 million in fines for the LOCSD, due to delays in building a community-wide sewer system, are "illegal, unnecessary, and unprecedented," and called the Water Board's actions "arbitrary and capricious."
The petition asks the courts to vacate the orders.
The "Cease and Desist Orders" against the 46 property owners could force them to be fined out of their homes if a sewer system isn't on-line by January 1, 2011.
Furthermore, in a potential bombshell in the 30-year-old Los Osos sewer saga, the lawsuit also challenges the very law that has led to the development of a sewer project in the first place for the community of nearly 15,000.
In her brief, Sullivan writes, "Petitioners contend that due to irregularities by the Agencies, the version of Resolution 83-13, which the RWQCB now seeks to enforce, was not properly adopted by the RWQCB or the (State Water Resources Control Board)," and adds that the records pertaining to adoption of Resolution 83-13 are "irregular, incomplete, and inconsistent."
Resolution 83-13 was adopted by the RWQCB in 1983, and made it illegal for Los Osos property owners within the "Prohibition Zone" -- most, but not all of Los Osos -- to continue to discharge from their septic tanks, thus necessitating an alternative wastewater disposal method, and, to date, the only alternative the RWQCB said they will approve, is a community-wide sewer system.
If the CCW lawsuit is successful, and Resolution 83-13 is ruled "invalid," there will no longer be a legal mandate for the town to stop using its septic systems, and a community-wide sewer system would, at least temporarily, be unnecessary.
Additionally, the lawsuit also argues, "Petitioners seek to enforce an important public right affecting the public and interest and will confer a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons which entitles Petitioners reimbursement for attorneys' fees and cost..."
In an e-mail, CCW spokesperson, Gail McPherson, wrote, "The (Water Board) will have 60 days to reply. The trial will likely be in the Fall."
In their press release, CCW added, “This action finally brings the long nightmare of water board enforcement in front of the courts,” said one of plaintiffs in the case.
SewerWatch will continue to follow this developing story.
###
[*Clarification, July 12, 2009: Although the brief sent to SewerWatch is dated July 2, 2009, and the headline in the CCW press release reads, "Los Osos Lawsuit ask courts to remove unfair water board enforcement from individual homeowners," the lawsuit is an "amended" version of a lawsuit CCW lawsuit filed in 2007, according to an e-mail from McPherson. "Finally we will go before a judge in a trial," she wrote.]
posted by Ron at
10:18 PM
17 Comments:
Quick comment...
CCW's press release was a little confusing, and didn't seem to make it clear that their brief, dated, July 2, 2009, was an "amended" version of their previous petition.
Now I know.
However, with that said... still a "Game Changer," because of this, "Finally we will go before a judge in a trial."
Unless the RWQCB can find some sort of technicality to weasel their way out if it, Roger Briggs, and his buddies at all of those State Water Boards, are going to get stomped on this CCW lawsuit, if it, indeed, ends up in a real trial.
Here's why: Just by the nature of the set-up of the various Water Boards -- where there are ZERO checks and balances; where the oversight of the Regional Boards is conducted by the State Board, and they're all on the exact same page -- just by the nature of THAT set-up, the Regional Boards can be as sloppy as they want, and nothing will ever happen to them.
I HATE that set-up. And to make matters worse, the State Attorney General's office is required, BY LAW, to represent ALL of the State Boards.
So, when it comes down, for example, to the People of California vs. State Water Boards, the AG has to represent the State Water Boards.
It's a terrible situation.
If you want to have a little fun with what I just said there, call the AG's "Public Inquiry Unit" phone number (toll free: (800) 952-5225), and keep pushing buttons until you get to where it asks you if you want to file a complaint against a State agency, and then listen to that recording. It's maddening! Unbelievable.
So, yes, the Regional Boards can be as sloppy as they want, and nothing will ever happen to them... unless someone (private) finally sues them, and gets all of that sloppy work into a REAL courtroom.
And when those GAPING holes (that are all over the CCWQCB's work these past 26 years) end up in a REAL trial, those gaping holes WILL be clearly, and HIGHLY embarrassingly exposed, and the fall-out will be HEAVY duty.
Imagine, just imagine, this absolutely beautiful line of questioning to an under-oath Roger Briggs, on the stand...in Superior Court!:
SULLIVAN: I'm holding an e-mail dated Wednesday, September 28, 2005, that was sent to "Roger Briggs" from someone named Pandora Nash-Karner. Do you know Mrs. Nash-Karner?
BRIGGS: Yes.
SULLIVAN: Would you please read what she wrote in that e-mail?
BRIGGS: "I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning. Pandora"
SULLIVAN: Did she call you that Thursday morning?
BRIGGS: Yes.
SULLIVAN: Would you please tell this courtroom the nature of that conversation?
... and then it would be SO ON!
That "Thursday morning" phone call was where former Solution Group marketing director, former Los Osos CSD vice-president, and former Save the Dream "Chair," Nash-Karner enacted her "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" in a desperate attempt to save her Tri-W sewer project.
Oh, if there's a journalism God, please let Roger Briggs end up on the stand this Fall, in Superior Court. I will carve out whatever time needed to attend that testimony. I don't care what it takes. I wouldn't miss that for the world.
I smell another extended "sabbatical" coming on for ol' Rog.
By
Ron, at 10:58 AM, July 12, 2009
In her brief, Sullivan writes, "Petitioners contend that due to irregularities by the Agencies, the version of Resolution 83-13, which the RWQCB now seeks to enforce, was not properly adopted by the RWQCB or the (State Water Resources Control Board)," and adds that the records pertaining to adoption of Resolution 83-13 are "irregular, incomplete, and inconsistent."
This is an interesting development. In the '80's the citizen's group CAWS sued the Water Board over 83-13 but due to statue of limitations, it was thrown out, if I remember correctly. There were lots of irregularities. However, I think that during the first CSD 'era', that the water board created a new resolution that overrides 83-13? Nevertheless, if this new group could be heard on the Pandora-created-fine-company's mandate, that would be great. (Some people have a Mining Company, maybe she has a Fining Company where if you want a community and your friends fined outta existence, who ya gonna call? Pandora's Fining Company. Does the power flow both ways? Could she now call Roger and order him to remove the fine order? From this maybe we could learn how much power she has. She must have power since Supervisor Gibson looks the other way and covers for her lack of participation on the board that he appointed her to. He has to think of his re-election campaign.
I guess I've had a difficult time believing that she is powerful but check the list of officials who obeyed her call: Coastal Commission, Roger Briggs Water Board, Supervisor Gibson.)
By
Commentary, at 8:26 PM, July 12, 2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Gadfly, at 6:29 PM, July 14, 2009
There goes Ron posting to himself again about a lawsuit that has already been tossed out by the Court (under PZLDF). Obviously Ron likes to play with himself.
Such a ridiculous man Ron be.
By
Gadfly, at 6:29 PM, July 14, 2009
Gadfly, you should read the Lawsuit. They have brilliantly found a way to attack 83-13. The RWQCB made an action, every action is subject to a reaction and thus RWQCB opened the door on the issue of 83-13. It's a brilliant strategy on the part of the petitioners to have jumped on that moment. (and I'm not Ron Crawford, sorry to disappoint). (I'm interested in what the deleted comments were).
By
Commentary, at 8:27 AM, July 15, 2009
Commentary....if you say so Ron.
Just more brilliant PLZDF and CCW nonesense that will go nowhere. At least this time they will waste their own money and not the CSD's, dearie.
By
Gadfly, at 9:25 AM, July 15, 2009
Ah, Gadfly... so close to having me keep your last comment posted, and then you had to go and get loose with that last line, and, of course, that brought out the SewerWatch buzzer.
Commentary (not me) wrote:
"(Gibson) has to think of his re-election campaign."
Allow me to play campaign manager for ALL of Gibson's opponents: At every chance you get, remind voters that his appointment to the Parks Commission developed and then IMPLEMENTED a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," and THEN he (re)appointed her to the Parks Commission.
At every debate, in every press release, at all public appearances.... just over and over and over again, do exactly that.
That campaign should be fun to watch.
Commentary:
"I guess I've had a difficult time believing that she is powerful but check the list of officials who obeyed her call: Coastal Commission, Roger Briggs Water Board, Supervisor Gibson.)"
... and Darrin Polhemus, and Shirley Bianchi, and Bud Laurent, and the SWRCB, and Dave Congalton, and Bill Morem, and 1998 Los Osos voters, and 2001 assessment vote voters, and on, and on, and on... The list of officials, and voters, and media members that she's Jedi-mind tricked over the years is spectacular.
By
Ron, at 11:22 AM, July 15, 2009
Ron a.k.a. Commentary,
Yeah, right!
This old gal knows when she is being fed bullshit.
By
Gadfly, at 11:26 AM, July 15, 2009
You deleted my post!
Did you do so because after reading the CCW lawsuit I reported that Gail McPherson, the CCW and Sullivan filed a lawsuit that fraudulently named THE LOCSD AS A PLAINTIFF. The LOCSD is not involved in the suit at all. This appalling behavior by Gail, the CCW and Sullivan is not ony discusting, but hightlights the incompetency of Gail and Sullivan.
Gee Ron, being the investagative reporter that you are, are you not embarrassed that you did not catch this CCW SNAFU; all the while claiming you had read and understand the lawsuit? So much for your powers of investagation.
Or did you delete my post because you did not like my rude (abet honest and true)comment about Gail and Ann Calhoun (who is a plaintiff of the CCW lawsuit too). Such a protector of morals are you.
By
Gadfly, at 11:45 AM, July 15, 2009
Gad:
"Or did you delete my post because you did not like my rude (abet honest and true)comment about Gail and Ann Calhoun (who is a plaintiff of the CCW lawsuit too). Such a protector of morals are you."
Yep.
Just use some common sense, so I don't have to bring out the buzzer again.
By
Ron, at 12:08 PM, July 15, 2009
The waterboard?
It would be nice if a "new" group using "brilliant" strategy, was able to bring the waterboard to its knees. The waterboard's rougue actions are, well, unprecedented.
There are many entities that have callously bled the captive waterboardees.
These are 46 los Osos housholds who were forced into representing 4500 who were to be similarly enforced upon, but wern't.
Each of the 46 should be given a stack of get out of jail free cards for having allowed the privalage of spending 3 years with their property selectively downgraded in value, and their precious time wasted.
There is no oversight over the regulators, there is even less oversight of the self proclaimed overseers.
brilliantly marketed for Los Osos internal consumption.
Well I'm not looking for the buzzer, but
"Citizens For Clean Water -- a non-profit group comprised of Los Osos citizens and the Los Osos Community Services District"
Is clearly incorrect. I've not memorized the last 3 CSD meeting agendas but I did attend them and the LOCSD was nowhere in that loop.
By
Alon Perlman, at 1:07 PM, July 15, 2009
Gadfly, you read the lawsuit? All 37 pages? Hard to believe. There is choice legal strategy buried in that long document. But I guess since you missed that, explains why you are having a difficult time distinguishing between a journalist and an observer making comments(commentary :). Did you read my blog? Not much there but imagine would an author, Ron Crawford, be keeping two blogs?
(this is mildly humorous).
By
Commentary, at 1:23 PM, July 15, 2009
Alon wrote:
"Each of the 46 should be given a stack of get out of jail free cards for having allowed the privalage of spending 3 years with their property selectively downgraded in value, and their precious time wasted."
Yes, and also wasted (and continues to be wasted) on that enforcement action debacle, was/is a gigantic stack of state taxpayer money. Like I said, it's a terrible situation.
Alon:
"Citizens For Clean Water -- a non-profit group comprised of Los Osos citizens and the Los Osos Community Services District"
Is clearly incorrect. I've not memorized the last 3 CSD meeting agendas but I did attend them and the LOCSD was nowhere in that loop."
Yeah, that's kind of a weird deal there -- that the LOCSD's name shows up as a "Petitioner" on the lawsuit, but I've been told that they're no longer involved with the lawsuit. I've also been told that their name is on that document due to a "legal" thing... so, I'm not too sure what to make of it.
Are they? Aren't they? I don't know. It's kinda weird. However, their name's on the lawsuit, dated July 2, 2009. So, I'm going to wait to hear from some official source before I make that call, and then, as per SewerWatch style, I'll cite that source.
"Well I'm not looking for the buzzer, but..."
Trust me, you have to say something waaaaaaay more disgusting than that, for me to bust out the ol' buzzer.
Just ask Gadflea.
By
Ron, at 1:27 PM, July 15, 2009
Ron a.k.a. Commentary,
I read all 37 pages of nonesense in the CCW lawsuit. In that suit there is not one ounce of law or caselaw; nothing but 37 pages of hogwash (exactly like the court-dismissed PZLDF lawsuit it copies and rehashes). To tout that smelly pile of legalistic bullshit as brilliant lawyering is laughable.
As for Ron a.k.a. Commenatary not knowing 'what to make of the CCW lawsuit naming the LOCSD as a plaintiff', just goes to show that he does not have a clue, any investigative ability or journalistic integrity. Oh, Ron makes great claims about this 'abilities'; but reality shows he is just a buffoon trying to tell us that the sky is falling onto the RWQCB due to the CCW's silly lawsuit.
By
Gadfly, at 2:00 PM, July 15, 2009
Just talked to a source, and, apparently the LOCSD's name is on the Petition until a Judge orders it removed, and that hasn't happened yet.
So, in other words, I'm right, as usual -- the LOCSD's name officially appears as a Petitioner on the CCW lawsuit dated July 2, 2009, just like I reported. Boo-yeah.
G. Flea wrote:
"Such a protector of morals are you."
and;
"Such a ridiculous man Ron be."
Great... now we have another Star Wars-ism -- Yoda Gadflea.
First, I showed how Nash-Karner "Jedi mind tricks" people into doing things they normally wouldn't do.
Then, I showed how Bruce Gibson looks like an Ewok, with the BrucEwok (that link's also a great story, by the way).
Now, there's Yoda Gadflea. Beautiful.
Oooo... can I be Hans Solo? That'd be cool. And my big, hairy Aussie, Tootsie, could be Chewbacca, and SewerWatch could be the Millennium Falcon. Awesome.
And Briggs? That's an easy one: Lord Vadar
And the RWQCB? That creepy guy with the hood and yellow eyes, you know, Vadar's boss. That dude.
By
Ron, at 4:29 PM, July 15, 2009
Ron a.k.a.Commentary,
Slinging you bullshit as usual.
The LOCSD never gave permission to the CCW to allow the LOCSD to be included in the lawsuit.
Gee, do you think the CCW can just place anyone's or any organization's name as plaintiffs in a lawsuit withtout first getting permission?
Do you really think that a judge has to determine who the plaintiffs will be; and has the power to remove named plaintiffs at will?
Do you really think that you are being a topdrawer investagative journalist just because you took unsubstanciated information from a 'source' who has no known credibility....and then ask us to believe you and the information provided at face value?
By
Gadfly, at 4:50 PM, July 15, 2009
Typo or Slip?
Padnora/Gadfly wrote: "Slinging you bullshit as usual."
By
Watershed Mark, at 7:09 PM, July 16, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home