1/27/2020: We’re Still Fighting to Save the Canal

1/27/2020: We’re Still Fighting to Save the Canal

 

Update on saving the canal effort: The hearing for our lawsuit is March 13 at 2:30pm at the Placerville Courthouse. We have submitted our initial brief a month ago and EID just submitted their rebuttal brief. Now our attorney has the opportunity to rebut their brief. See attached links for both briefs.

The EID Board voted to use the Blair Rd. alternative and ABANDON the ditch, instead installing the pipe down most of Blair Rd. Save the Canal’s position is that without water in the canal, tree mortality and trees falling in the ditch due to winter storms will be the responsibility of property owners. The canal can’t be abandoned, as it is part of EDC’s drainage system. In addition, lack of water (especially in summer months) will forever change the migration pattern of wildlife through Pollock Pines.   The canal is a firefighting resource and we all know what removing it will do to our ever increasing homeowners’ insurance policies.

We continue to need your help with legal fees. It is critical as the cost of  paying an attorney to write these briefs is very expensive, but very important.

Will you consider another donation to help us get through this final push we’ve been working on for 4 years? We are grateful for all of your donations so far as these efforts by the community have helped get us to this point in our fight!

DONATE HERE

Save the Canal’s opening brief 12/12/19

2019.12.12 FINAL STEC v EID Opening Brief

 

EID’s Opposition Brief 1/24/2020

01242020 FINAL Brief in Opposition to STEC Pet 4 Writ of Mandate – Main Ditch (00076950-16xD2C75)

 

Here’s the TOC from our opening brief:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….. 6

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………. 8

A. The District and the history of the Main Ditch and

proposed Project …………………………………………………………………… 8

B. The approved Project – the Blair Road Alternative …………………… 14

C. Administrative process ………………………………………………………….. 16

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ……………………………………………………………… 16

IV. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………………… 18

A. The EIR omits critical information regarding the Project ………….. 18

1. The Project Description misstates the need for

the Project …………………………………………………………… 18

2. The Project Description omits crucial facts ……………… 20

B. The EIR’s impacts analysis is insufficient ……………………………… 24

1. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate

the Project’s impacts to aesthetics and recreation ……… 25

2. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate

the Project’s impacts to Biological resources …………… 28

a. The EIR fails to adequately respond to

comments from CDFW ……………………………………. 28

b. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate

the Project’s impacts on tree mortality ………………. 31

3. The EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s

impacts increasing risks associated with wildfires ……. 33

4. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate

the Project’s impacts to hydrology, including increased

risk of flooding …………………………………………………….. 35

a. The EIR fails to disclose the environmental

conditions in the vicinity of the Project ……………… 35

b. Drainage impacts are foreseeable and must be

evaluated ……………………………………………………….. 41

V. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………. 43


Comments are closed.