Archive for the “Legal” Category

Court set January 26th as Next Decision Date

Posted by on January 15, 2010 under Legal. This post currently has 3 responses.

Finally some information. An update was posted yestarday at http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26096:

“On January 14th, the Court of Appeal, in San Francisco, filed an order accepting an amicus letter brief from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), filed on January 11, 2010. This letter argued that the Superior Court in Alameda County lacks jurisdiction to close the park because PEER and CSPA failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Water Board first before going to the Court.

Peer and CSPA have until January 20th to file an opposition to the SWRCB letter.

State Parks and/or the SWRCB have until January 25th to file a reply to the opposition from PEER and CSPA.

The park will remain open pending further court action. We expect the court to make a decision on the issue of park closure on or after January 26, 2010. ”

Don Amador comments:
“This has been, and continues to be, a very important test case for water quality-based lawsuits filed by agenda driven environmental groups. Many nervous land owners, farmers, family businesses are also watching this case.”

Appellate Court Case Information

Posted by on January 11, 2010 under Legal. This post currently has no responses.

The plaintiff’s most recent response (State’s petition to the Appellate Court) is not there yet but this is a good source if you are trying to understand how this works. You might get a headache too … don’t blame me!

Go HERE and enter case number RG09474549.  Use the left nav bar to select what you want to read. There’s a lot there already … Actions and Rulings & Orders seems to be the most interesting if you just want to see what’s happening.

If you truly enjoy reading this and/or understand it in detail. Please contact us. We can use the help.

What Happens Now?

Posted by on January 11, 2010 under Legal. This post currently has no responses.

This morning there was still no clear information available regarding the potential closure of our park. Combining the information that we have so far it seems we are facing three potential scenarios. The park could either:

  • stay open (ruling in favor of the state)
  • stay open under certain conditions until a new court date is set.
  • close (requires a ruling in favor of the lower court)

I know this isn’t particularly helpful for your riding planning but it’s all we’ve got. Take a look at Don Amador’s latest post as well.

The First Petition

Posted by on January 11, 2010 under Legal, Petitions, Press. This post currently has one response.

Here is the original petition:

We, the undersigned, are in opposition to a ruling[1] by Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court on September 22, 2009 to close Carnegie State Vehicle Recreation Area near Tracy, CA based on a lawsuit filed on September 17 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA)[2]. The plaintiffs are charging the California Department of Parks and Recreation and its OHMVR (Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation) Division are violating the state’s Water Code and their own regulations by allowing off-road vehicle activities to pollute Corral Hollow Creek at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation area[3]. We and our families use the park to enjoy, relax and spend quality time together on land set aside for this type of use. Below are our primary objections to this ruling.

1. Carnegie SVRA is the only venue of its kind in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties used year around and its closure to protect a waterway which only runs 3 to 4 months of the year will cause undue hardship to thousands of annual visitors and area residents. To off-road enthusiasts, it’s a site rich with history dating back to the 1960s when it was frequented by Bay Area founders of the sport. Interests of the many need to be protected, in this case, despite the displeasure of the few. This reason alone, in our judgment, should be sufficient to prevent the closure of Carnegie SVRA.

2. Closure will cause local enthusiasts to have to travel to more distant OHV parks causing harm to neighboring OHV parks from overuse and to the environment at large due to longer travel distances. This consideration is lost on the plaintiffs, negating their concern and attempt at protecting the environment. This reason alone, in our judgment, should be sufficient to prevent the closure of Carnegie SVRA.

3. Closing the park will financially impact area businesses due to loss of revenues from patrons who visit Carnegie. Alameda County will see a decline in sales tax revenues, which can be devastating in these hard financial times. This reason alone, in our judgment, should be sufficient to prevent the closure of Carnegie SVRA.

4. Adjacent to Carnegie OHV is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, a restricted Department of Energy site used for testing nuclear weapons and chemical explosives. According to a San Francisco Chronicle article dated July 21, 2005 “the site is contaminated with toxics including trichloroethylene, tritium and depleted uranium”[4] and it was classified as a Superfund site by the EPA in 19875, making it among the most severely contaminated areas in the nation. How can any responsible and objective third party definitively conclude the damage to Corral Hollow Creek is caused by patrons of Carnegie and not Site 300? This reason alone, in our judgment, should be sufficient to prevent the closure of Carnegie SVRA.

For these reasons we strongly oppose the closure of Carnegie SVRA and urge you to reverse this ruling.

Sign the Petition HERE

Links to References:
1. Judge Roesch’s Ruling
2. PEER News Release on Lawsuit
3. Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Petition
4. SF Chronicle Article dated Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Ruling That Started CarnegieForever.org

Posted by on January 11, 2010 under Legal. This post currently has 3 responses.

Here are Judge Roesch’s Ruling and the Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Petition.

Also check out the related info from PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) and CSPA (California Sportfishing Protection Alliance).

Page 2 of 212