April 1, 2022 (LOS ANGELES) – On March 18, 2022, the Kern County Superior Court ruled that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is entitled to recover $654,460.33 in costs and attorneys’ fees from its lawsuit with Inyo County to compensate LADWP for upholding the public interest. This ruling follows a 2021 Appellate Court finding that the Inyo County Board of Supervisors violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in its attempt to seize City of Los Angeles land and water rights through eminent domain without conducting any environmental review.
Historically, LADWP has leased land to Inyo County to operate three landfills – the Bishop-Sunland, Independence, and Lone Pine Landfills – all of which are unlined and pose a threat to surface and groundwater, and have received thousands of violations over the years.
In 2017, the County determined it wanted to own the land on which it operates the landfills, and with it, the associated water rights. Rather than work with LADWP to find a solution to the challenging landfills, the County hastily initiated eminent domain proceedings, which the Appellate Court confirmed neglected to follow CEQA. As required by court order, Inyo County has rescinded all three resolutions authorizing the use of eminent domain.
Anselmo Collins, LADWP Senior Assistant General Manager of Water System, provided the following statement regarding the Superior Court’s decision:
“While we were disappointed that this issue ended up in the courts after our repeated attempts to avoid unnecessary litigation and help Inyo County bring the landfills into compliance, we are pleased with the court’s finding and order to compensate LADWP and its ratepayers for the time and resources expended to prosecute this action. However, these fees only recover a portion of what LADWP was forced to spend to protect the public and environment and ultimately win this wholly avoidable case.”
Discover more from Sierra Wave: Eastern Sierra News - The Community's News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank God for our top-notch eastern Sierra governments and agencies. Without them, how would people in L.A. keep making money off us in court?
This bodes well for DWP public relations in the Eastern Sierra once again, not. $655,000 divided by 20,000 folks in Inyo County is $32.75 apiece. A valid complaint is that the LADWP continues to get over on the folks and the environment of the Eastern Sierra. Isn’t it ironic that they use CEQA issues to prevail in this public interest case, while they are the first to claim Negative Decs and Categorical Exemptions with nearly every project they propose.
Karma bites.
This what Inyo County gets for stealing my suggestion that it use eminent domain to acquire the LADWP land upon which the County operates its landfills.
I made it in good faith – via an 1/17/17 email to former Inyo County CAO Kevin Carunchio – in an attempt to help the County with the dilemma it found itself in with LADWP.
But Mr. Carunchio et al. never even acknowledged my suggestion; instead they claimed the idea as their own, even duping the LA Times into believing that after being forced to sign “draconian” leases with LADWP, the idea suddenly struck them out of the blue.
It certainly did – but they got the idea from me, not God. I first suggested it to fomer Inyo County CAO Rene Mendez in 2001, when I worked in the Inyo County Counsel’s office.
And Alice, of course the Board of Supervisors consulted county counsel, i.e., Marshall Rudolph – it was his decision not to do a CEQA analysis that just cost us all $650K.
But he retired and slithered out of town a few months ago – I wonder why?
Thanks.
Sounds like you are partially responsible then for failing to outline a fail-safe process for success.
Thank you Mateo, for allowing me to clarify, as I was worried I had left that impression.
I would first point out that since Inyo County never even acknowldged my email, I couldn’t very well do what you criticize me for not doing – I first read about the County hijacking my idea in the LA Times.
Also, I had given Inyo County the eminent domain idea; I didn’t think I had to walk it through CEQA as well (that’s what others are for).
In any event, there are two laws involved:
1) Eminent Domain – a substantive law giving public entities authority to acquire property for a public purpose.
What I pointed out to the County is that eminent domain can be used by one public entity (e.g., a county) to acquire the property of another public entity (e.g., a city) if the acquiring entity’s use of the property is more important than the owning entity’s use of it.
My argument was that Inyo County’s use of the property to operate a landfill was/is a lot more important than LADWP’s mere ownership of it as a landlord, and so Inyo County should be able to use eminent domain to acquire and have control of that property.
That is and remains a good and valid argument and was not the basis of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
2) CEQA (California Environmental l Quality Act) – a procedural law requiring public entities to asses, identify, and either mitigate or eliminate the deleterious environmental effects of their decisions and actions.
This is the law Inyo County bothched.
In its giddy haste to pull a fast one on LADWP, the County “cut to the chase,” and made a finding under CEQA that its decision to use eminent domain to acquire LADWP’s land need not first be reviewed for its environmental effects.
That is the error the Kern County Superior Court found the County had made; and, as KSRW reports, the Court of Appeal just upheld the Superior Court’s decision, awarding LADWP $650K in costs and attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party.”
I had nothing to do with the County’s decision as to how to follow – or not follow – CEQA; that was all on the advice of the Inyo County Counsel’s office.
Comprende?
Thanks again.
Hi Allan, my sincere gratitude for providing a very excellent and thorough analysis of eminent domain and CEQA, and specifically where the County botched it. May qualify as the single most valuable response ever put on the internet. Valuable to our reps, valuable to our public.
Much as I really hate to say it, they’re right.
Did the board of sups not consult county counsel???