Calhouns Can(n)ons

RWQCB Court Ruling?

The following press release is from PZLDF regarding the recent case of some of the Los Osos 45.

Note: Some anonymous posters have been faux-chuffing over my supposed “non-disclosure” in the PZLDF case, which tells me they haven’t been paying attention to this blog or the RWQCB proceedings. Waaaay back when, I and many other community members originally signed on as a “designated party” in the original CDO hearings several years ago in support of the Los Osos 45. The RWQCB first allowed then then denied that designation, but said we could sign on and comment as “interested” parties, said comments then became part of the “legal” administrative public record, said comments which I also posted here. [9/13/06 “Yes, It’s a Pop Quiz” & 10/98/16, “Facts-R-Not-Us,” among other references] It was the curious case of my having written only to have my words MISREPRESENTED and placed in the official public administrative record, then having written to demand the MISREPRESENTATION in the record be CORRECTED, only to have that complaint dismissed and jumbled into the incompetently, bungled mess the RWQCB was struggling to put together, which was constantly being morphed and was never really totally thrown out even when the Grand Inquisitor came to town and the case – supposedly – started over, but the record wasn’t destroyed or corrected and the case didn’t really start over and at this point, until the administrative record is officially released, nobody has a clue as to what was put in or taken out, which is one of one of the reasons why this (real) lawsuit is so important.

So, to date, the legal score on my involvement with the Los Osos 45 is mirroring the old Mastercard ad: My administrative standing before La Barbara ruled –Signed on as a Publicly posted and publicly discussed RWQCB “designated party/interested party” status. My (real) Legal standing before La Barbara ruled -- 0. My (real) legal standing after La Barbara ruled – 0. Financial contractual connection to the law firm representing some of the Los Osos 45 (besides still being signed on and listed and carried through as a RWQCB “designated/interested party” -- 0. Financial interest in the outcome of this case – 0. Personal stake in the outcome of this case – same as everyone in the PZ. PUBLICLY stated support of the Los Osos 45, PUBLICLY stated and posted support for this legal hearing going before a “real” judge to sort out the RWQCB’s bungled mess (see above), PUBLICLY stated and posted support of getting the community off their butts to help their friends and neighbors since they are ALL Notice of Violation “interested parties” -- Lots, public, numerous, repeated, no surprise there. Enjoying reading the comments of some of the anonymous posters on this site chuffing in faux-faux outrage at a phony “non-disclosure” issue? Priceless.

Herewith the PZLDF press release concerning the case. I have no idea why Roger Briggs’ description of the court ruling was written that way. He wasn’t in court but two attorneys from the Attorney General’s office were running the case. Maybe they got confused at the ruling and gave Roger the wrong information?

Well, no matter. There are so many things wrong with these RWQCB CDO/ACL Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court “Trials,” and Auto de Fe Public Hangings, it’s hard to know where to begin. This press release points up but one simple weirdness: How can anyone amend a record if the record has not even been prepared, so nobody has a clue what’s in the record in the first place? And repeated appeals to GET the record are ignored, all while the clock runs out on the appeals process itself, thereby denying basic legal rights and protections to CDO holders, and, of course – ta-DAH! – running the clock out on the 218 vote, hmmmmm?

Yes, well, fun and games in Sacramento, with the real tragedy being that I doubt that the majority of homeowners in this community either know or care about the serious regulatory/legal/constitutional/procedural issues at work here that really do need to see the light of day in a court of law.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Gail McPherson, 805.459.4535

Appeal of Individual Enforcement

SAN LUIS OBISPO - On September 21, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Barry T. LaBarbera signed an order approving a motion for leave to amend, and providing time to file the amended petition.

Roger Briggs, Executive director for the Regional Water Board incorrectly reported to the press "Regional Water Board Gets Lawsuit Challenging Cease and Desist Orders Thrown Out stating "A San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge threw out a lawsuit which challenged cease and desist orders that the Central Coast Regional Water Board issued to a group of Los Osos residents. The Water Board orders require the residents to cease violations of state regulations prohibiting the use of septic systems in Los Osos/Baywood Park."

The court order signed by Shaunna Sullivan and the Attorney General's office both agreed to an extension of time to file the amended complaint until at least November 20, 2007. The order also set a hearing to request that the citizens be allowed to amend their petition after the record has been produced. Getting the administrative record has been a contentious issue, and the Judge already ordered in August that it must be produced by the water board.
Court documents are posted at http://www.pzldf.org/

The spokesperson for the Citizens for Clean Water-Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund believes the press report by the water board sought to influence voters with misinformation on the status of the enforcement appeal. "The preemptive reaction by Briggs to mislead the community followed the water boards explicit direction on September 7th water board meeting to 'level the enforcement field in Los Osos' by rolling back the random orders".

The prosecution staff at the water Board was directed to prepare for a public hearing ASAP to vacate the 46 random orders. This vacating of the 46 individual orders is set for Dec 6, but was requested for Oct. 19 (before the 218 vote) to help assure against the perception of a coerced vote.

Gail McPherson said "Roger Briggs hostile actions further place the 218 vote at risk, and defies the very intent of the water board to constructively solve the contentious issues in Los Osos for the fair treatment of all property owners, who are struggling to resolve years of failure by the water board's flawed resolution 83-13, which the water board has fiercely protected against any challenge, an now puts a viable wastewater project at risk."

-END-