The North Coast Railroad Authority is hoping to short-circuit a pair of environmental lawsuits by retroactively saying the effort to restore freight rail service in the region was not subject to state law in the first place.
The agency's board will consider a motion today that would undo key portions of a 2011 resolution that finalized a $3 million, taxpayer-funded environmental impact report, prepared under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The resolution wouldn't disavow the EIR itself, agency Executive Director Mitch Stogner said, but would instead make a technical change to remove any mention of the resumption of freight rail traffic along the North Coast as a "project" as defined in the law.
The agency has long argued that federal law pre-empts state law in railroad operation and therefore the state courts have no authority to block any activity on the tracks. By undoing the 2011 resolution, officials hope to remove any hint that NCRA had ever agreed to be bound by state law.
"If that's the hat on which you're going to hang your lawsuit," Stogner said, "we're just going to remove the hat."
The 24-year-old agency is trying to restore freight traffic along a 316-mile length of tracks from southern Napa County into Humboldt County. The first segment, 142 miles of track that runs as far north as Willits, has cost the state about $60 million, with still more work left to do.
Although limited rail service resumed between Napa and Windsor two years ago, two environmental groups have sued, saying the EIR was flawed and should be thrown out. Friends of the Eel River and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics argue that the environmental report should have studied the whole 316 miles rather than stopping at Willits, less than halfway.
They also say the EIR failed to look at a number of important issues, including toxic substances such as lead, dioxin, and creosote that might be released by the extensive repair work on the century-old tracks.
Patty Clary, executive director of CATS, seemed taken aback by the agency's proposed move to change its 2011 resolution, calling it "most unusual" and saying it was yet another matter that would have to be resolved by a court.
"It shows some kind of desperation on their part," she said.
2 years of lawsuits