Off-Roaders Win Against Lawsuit to Close Bay Area OHV Park

[LYIN' KING]

BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC.

MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Don Amador, BRC Western Representative
Phone: 925.625.6287
Email: brdon@sharetrails.org
Date: June 22, 2012


OFF-ROADERS WIN AGAINST LAWSUIT TO CLOSE BAY AREA OHV PARK


OAKLAND, CA (June 22)--The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC), a national trail-based recreation group, wants to congratulate the California OHV Program in a recent court victory to keep a popular state managed motorized park open in the S.F. Bay Area. The suit was dismissed "with prejudice" under a recent stipulation, meaning that it cannot be re-filed.

Late in 2009, two anti-OHV groups filed an action against California State Parks and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, alleging violations of state laws regarding water pollution at Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed the suit in the Superior Court in Alameda County alleging violations of state laws regarding water pollution at the park.

The anti-access groups won an initial round in the Superior Court, but that decision was reversed on appeal. In the meantime, the agencies have worked diligently to address water quality to the apparent satisfaction of the anti-access groups. The stipulation resolving the case makes clear it is not to be construed for any purpose as an admission of liability.

Don Amador, Western Representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition, stated, "I want to thank the hard working staff at the Division and the thousands of users who fought back against this unwarranted lawsuit. This whole case could have been avoided if the anti-OHV groups had offered to work with the park in a cooperative manner instead of filing a lawsuit to close the park down."

"The park and Central Valley Water Board are to be commended for their patience and professionalism under difficult circumstances, and they set an example of how agencies can work together to address environmental issues without resorting to litigation," Amador concluded.

Read the Stipulated Judgment here:
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/C...ation_2012.pdf

[Reid Racing]

That's terrific news - especially for those of us to whom Carnegie is local!

BIG thanks to BlueRibbon Coalition and everyone else who's been involved in the fight to keep this park open!!!

[cruzila]

Good work!! Let's keep the momentum!! Support your Land Use Org today!

[OrangeCrash]

Hope this means the people that files this action are not getting any money for Legal fees

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

Hope this means the people that files this action are not getting any money for Legal fees

$65K

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by fermentor

$65K

Not only does EAJA need reform (Both State and Federal) it needs to be a priority.

They should have to show personal harm, I'm sick of their make believe and I'm even more sick of their make believe science.

While I certainly appreciate the hard work of Daphne and her team, placating these imbeciles is only encouraging them.

We need Judges to not take these suits and force these groups to the table to work with us.

I'm glad Carnegie is saved for now, even though there is really nothing for 4x4's there - here's hoping our participation in the survey posted earlier will remedy that.

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by Bebe

While I certainly appreciate the hard work of Daphne and her team, placating these imbeciles is only encouraging them.

Bebe
Did you read why Division had to placate the two enviro groups?

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

Bebe
Did you read why Division had to placate the two enviro groups?

Ride on
Brewster

While indeed it is great to hear of the issue being settled, I find my self perplexed from a couple of posts here.

I don't understand why the kudos for BRC as I don't believe they were a party to the lawsuit.

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why some consider this a win. It seem to me from my reading that the OHV Division has been saddled with further restrictions; is paying - out of our OHV funds - $ 65,000 for legal fees; will likely have to spend significate "BMP" money to comply with the order; and have to be under the watchful eye of the groups bringing the action.

So Brew, why did the Division have to "placate" the two enviro groups?

[cruzila]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

I don't understand why the kudos for BRC as I don't believe they were a party to the lawsuit.

Sometimes it is best to just let things go.

Just sayin'

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

So Brew, why did the Division have to "placate" the two enviro groups?

That is sort of my question to Bebe. I don't see where Division/Carnegie has to do anything beyond complying with the conditions of the permit from the state and local water quality control boards. Division/Carnegie was already going down that path before the law suit. There are a couple of minor changes to the permit requirements as a result of the law suit.

As to the Division having to pay $65K, my guess is that is what the judge determined to be the part of the total costs that relate to portion of the judgment that the plaintiffs prevailed on. Considering that this case went almost three years, the total legal bill for the plaintiffs is most likely much higher. PEER and the California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance will have to make up the remainder of their attorney fee.

To access all of the court documents, go here and enter RG09474549

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/do...sesumbody.html

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by cruzila

Sometimes it is best to just let things go.

Just sayin'

Thanks for the advice and I'll heed it.

[navy-jeepster]

Duck

Anytime we can keep an area open is a win in my eyes.
BRC via Don Amador was at the table on this fight.

So, take it for what it is worth.

Thanks for your work Don, and the BRC staff.

Todd

[cuttenkid]

Todd,

Team effort. Hard work by Division staff .... and given political cover by the many OHV groups and users that supported the 2009 Xmas/News Years Rally, etc.

Don

[The Wolf]

You gotta give credit when it is due - BRC through Don Amador and AMA 36 through Dave Picket were a huge part of this fight! Good job guys!

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You gotta give credit when it is due - BRC through Don Amador and AMA 36 through Dave Picket were a huge part of this fight! Good job guys!

Never said it wasn't I just hate seeing people that know nothing but litigation get any money, you just know a knife is out there is just a matter of when and where not if. Anyway yes I'm glad this one's over good job all involved, someone has to be at the table and it's a huge responsibility keeping those you represent of the menu that's all I ask.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by navy-jeepster

Duck

BRC via Don Amador was at the table on this fight.

Todd

With respect here...

Please help me out. What does this mean?

How could BRC be "at the table" when I don't see them as a party to the action?

The litigant's, from the legal agreement are shown and I don't see Don nor BRC (or any other OHV group for that matter) signing the agreement. I don't doubt for a minute that many individuals and orgs were concerned or in some why attempt to help re-open this area. But "at the table" when the parties were hammering out the stipulated settlement?

And... once again: It's great to see the area opening again. That of it self is a good thing.

I just don't classify this as a "win" (as a lawsuit) because essentially (from what I read here) the parties have agreed to settle with stipulations set forth and what appears to be additional cost to operate the area.

We might just have a different definition of the word.

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

And... once again: It's great to see the area opening again. That of it self is a good thing.

It was never closed, thanks to Division. That is part of the "win". The plaintiffs wanted the park to close until all of the remedies were in place.

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Brewster2

It was never closed, thanks to Division. That is part of the "win". The plaintiffs wanted the park to close until all of the remedies were in place.

Ride on
Brewster

Thanks for the clairification. I stand corrected.