NCSD Half Truth #11: "It's a legal document and it's real"
NCSD often makes statements implying that the court is making decisions when no decision is actually being made, Example:
2/07/12 Mike Winn's public comments at the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors
| h:mm:ss | Notes on Comments made |
| 0:00:07 | Good Morning chairman Patterson supervisors . My name is Mike Winn. |
| 0:00:09 | I do serve in Nipomo, in the Community Services District board as well as the chair of your Water Resources Advisory Committee WRAC |
| 0:00:17 | I have two issues briefly today of sort of environmental interest. |
| 0:00:22 | First, we have sent letters on fracking |
| 0:01:06 | The second thing also briefly has to do with seawater intrusion in Oceano, I will not beat this to death. |
| 0:01:14 | If it were not for the fact that there are a number of people who continue to say this did not happen. |
| 0:01:18 | As you know well, it was amply documented. |
| 0:01:23 | It was done quite independently by your own staff. |
| 0:01:27 | It went to the court in the 2009 report, on page 29 in the second bullet, |
| 0:01:35 | It's a legal document and it's real. |
| 0:01:38 | is it happing now, of course not because Oceano had supplemental water they cut back groundwater pumping |
| 0:01:45 | and as a result there has been recovery |
| 0:01:48 | and there is no seawater internal now, although it was as far as one half mile in. |
| 0:01:54 | In Nipomo as you know we are trying to do, get ourselves some more options so we can respond this same sort of threat in a timely manner. |
| 0:02:02 | Thank you |
This is not true, not only did the court not approve or accept the report. The decision does not carry any more weight then any other at a real court hearing.
What is “Real” or what is the value of a document or decision that has no “heightened evidentiary weight”,
and has not been approved by the court,
and if it was approved by the court that approval (good or bad) was pre-required by the settlement,
and was then appealed?
Technical Groups Reports status:
2010 NMMA TG comments on Supplemental Water, NOT filed to web site, but NOT Superior Court approved or accepted
2010 NMMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
2009 NMMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
2008 NMMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
2008 NMMA TG response plan, filled to web site, Superior Court "hereby approves the Nipomo Mesa Management Area Technical Group's Water Shortage Conditions and Response Plan.", Superior Court "Approval" Appealed
2010 NCMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
2009 NCMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
2008 NCMA TG report, filed to web site, but NOT requested to be approved or accepted by the Superior Court
When the "Superior Court accepts the Annual Report" it only asks if any of the stipulating parties want to comment or object to the report. If there are no comments or objections the court "accepts" the Annual Report. The court does not look at any of the details of the report.
The court has not been asked to look at or read any reports except the 2008 NMMA TG report and 2008 TMA TG report.
There is no record of any "direction" by the court.
There is no record of any "mandates" by the court.
The court has not "approved" or "accepted" the 2009 NCMA TG report, with the sample high chloride numbers.
Any court “approvals” have been appealed and are stayed pending appeal.
NCSD's motion on 4/28/09 to motion to request approval of the "Response plan" states:
Page 2 Line 22-26
" While the Annual Report does not require Court approval, the Stipulation further provides that the NMMA Tech Group is to develop criteria for declaring the existence of potentially severe water shortage conditions and the existence of severe water shortage conditions. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, these water shortage criteria are to be approved by this Court. (Stipulation at p. 25, 11. 5-7.)"
The Technical Group reports do not have any "heightened evidentiary weight" in real court hearings
Stipulation page 31: line 10-12
"The Court shall exercise de novo review in all proceedings. The actions or decisions of any Party, the Monitoring Parties, the TMA, or the Management Area Engineer shall have no heightened evidentiary weight in any proceedings before the Court."
Court approval is just a reflection of the settling parties having Pre-agreed that the court will approve the NMMA TG response plan and that it will be come part of the settlement
Stipulation page 25: line 20-22
"These criteria shall be approved by the Court and entered as a modification to this Stipulation or the judgment to be entered based upon this Stipulation."
When the Court has "approved" something to be part of the settlement it has been appealed
Superior Court "Approval" Appealed
see Technical Group Documents for more information