|
Mr. Sanders said he was angry because, for one thing, LandWatch demanded that the District
produce an administrative record that’s almost 10,000 pages long.
Tammy Rudock accused LandWatch of demanding “phantom” documents that
were never identified.
Tammy Rudock stated that,
“We did not appreciate any of the assertions that we destroyed
documents,” and, “we in no way did anything unlawful.”
At the August 19th CCSD meeting Tammy Rudock pointed to a
waist-high stack of volumes of documents and blamed LandWatch for the $20,000
she claimed it cost to produce it.
Tammy Rudock accused LandWatch of stretching out the litigation by 10
to 12 months.
Director Sanders said that the lawsuit was frivolous.
Mr. Sanders said “At my
request we convened a settlement conference”
Mr. Sanders stated that
“There was no attempt on the part of the proponents of the lawsuit to
contact the CCSD, ask questions and try to work it out.”
Mr. Sanders said that
LandWatch’s attack on the Water Master Plan EIR’s findings were not
part of the lawsuit.
Greg Sanders says that it is not true that the findings made in the
District’s Water Master Plan EIR will enable the District to construct a
desalination plant without any further review.
|
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Code of Civil
Procedure both require public agencies to produce the administrative record
in a case like the one LandWatch filed.
LandWatch filed a formal request for the District to produce it as
required by law.
The District produced over 9,000 pages of documents on a disc. LandWatch
had nothing to do with choosing the documents. The District decided entirely on its own what to
include. Don’t blame LandWatch
for an almost 10,000 page record.
In spite of the over 9,000 pages the District produced, it left out
whole categories such as internal emails. It left out a multi-year block of time when it was first
working with the Army Corps. It left out contracts with consultants
and engineering firms.
The law (CEQA) identifies in a list exactly what
categories of documents must be included in the record. LandWatch made sure the District had
the list.
LandWatch filed a motion to compel the District to produce the whole
record and got a court order to force the District to produce the missing
documents. The District produced
the contracts and testified in Court that it had produced all the documents
it had. Don’t blame LandWatch
because the District refused to produce required documents.
As an excuse as to why the record was missing internal emails – a
category of documents required by law – the District admitted that it
systematically destroys internal emails every three months. This is a violation of law punishable
by jail time. A public agency’s
record of its administrative decisions provides accountability for its
actions and destruction of it is a serious matter. (Read the law: See document #2, Record Destruction, below)
The District decided what would be in the record, not
LandWatch.
While the record was first produced on disc, the Court directed the
District to produce part of the record on paper so it would be easier to read. The Court made it clear that it
wanted the District to show, in the printed record, where the facts were that
backed up its findings – that construction and operation of the desal plant
would not harm the environment.
The District produced 13 volumes on paper and delivered them to
LandWatch. The District decided
on its own which documents to print in hard copy. LandWatch had nothing to do with selecting what documents the
District printed.
Then the District sited sections of only three volumes as its
facts and evidence. They
didn’t even use the other ten.
Don’t blame LandWatch for a padded record.
The District was over five months late on the legal due date to
produce the administrative record.
LandWatch filed two motions to compel the District to get the record
out – one in state court and one in federal court. When they finally did produce the record, more months were
wasted in LandWatch having to get a court order to force the District to
produce the missing documents.
Even with the court order the District refused to produce documents. With limited resources, LandWatch was
unable to file another motion for contempt of court. Don’t blame LandWatch for the case
lasting way too long.
“Frivolous” is a legal term defined by law. A lawsuit is frivolous when it is deemed to be frivolous
by the Court. The Court did not
deem our lawsuit to be frivolous and the District did not even ask the Court
to do so. This accusation is
false. (Read the law: See document #1, Frivolous, below)
Counsel for the parties had already discussed terms of settlement and
Greg Sanders simply asked to set the date for the parties to meet.
In March 2009 LandWatch sent personal emails to then-new Directors
McKinnon and DeMicco asking for a meeting with them to try to reach common
ground.
On October 9, 2009 LandWatch sent a letter to each director
explaining the suit and that LandWatch would dismiss the suit if the Board
would simply change their “findings” that the un-sited and un-designed
desalination plant would have no significant impacts on the environment.
Director Sanders wrote back and said that the directors would not
respond to us.
LandWatch provided a list of exactly the phrases in the findings that
needed to be amended in order to dismiss the lawsuit. The District refused to even talk
about the suggested changes.
Mr. Sanders apparently didn’t read the suit for himself. The fact that the District did not
back up its “findings” that construction and operation of the desalination
plant would not cause any significant impacts on the environment with
information about construction and operation of the plant is the entire
lawsuit. It is stated in the
original suit and in every filed document.
According to the law, once findings are approved they are
conclusively presumed to be valid and agencies like the County and the
Coastal Commission are required to accept them as valid. If the District wants to rely on the
findings that the un-sited and un-designed desal plant will not cause any
significant impact on the environment, it can do so legally.
When Mr. Sanders offered to settle the suit with the promise that the
District would do an EIR for the desal plant and LandWatch asked what if they
broke the promise, Greg said you can sue us.
|
