On the eve of the big North Coast Railroad Authority v. Everyone lawsuit trial date down in Marin County, a judge has signaled that he is inclined to rule against the railroad authority and for the County of Marin, the City of Novato and several Bay Area and Humboldt County environmental organizations.

In a pretrial memorandum, Marin County Superior Court Judge James R. Ritchie has signaled that he is inclined to issue a preliminary injunction on all railroad repair work currently underway on the south end of the line. (Technically, he writes that he’s inclined to stop all work contracted after Oct. 15 of this year, or work contracted before that has not actually begun.)

Beyond that, though, Ritchie writes that at this stage of the game he is inclined to side with the plaintiffs’ fundamental allegation — that the North Coast Railroad Authority violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it segmented the line into various parts, apparently in an effort to skirt the impact of the huge amount of traffic it plans to see coming down from Humboldt County. Here’s Ritchie’s take on the plaintiffs’ case:

Regarding likelihood of success: As discussed above, it appears that NCRA violated CEQA by filing the disputed Notices of Exemption before project approval, and by entering into contracts and allowing work to commence before performing the required CEQA analysis. It also appears that NCRA was attempting to avoid conducting CEQA review by claiming that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was not necessary for the construction work itself, but was necessary only for the planned operation of the railway. Instead, the “whole” project — whether broken up geographically, by phases of construction and operation, or otherwise — must be considered in CEQA analysis.

If the ruling eventually shakes out this way, the railroad authority will have to do a full environmental analysis of its entire plans for the line. And if that happens, it should at least resolve most of the doubletalk that has been endemic to NCRA and Humboldt Bay District planning over the last couple of years.

To read Judge James R. Ritchie’s assessment of the case, check pages 14-17 of this PDF file. The case will be heard tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.

You can download a PDF of an early plaintiffs’ brief in the case here.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. This might create some breathing room until the legislature can pull the plug on this whole stinking mess. Container ships in Humboldt Bay and gravel trains creeping along Eureka’s waterfront make about the same amount of sense as LNG did. Zip.

  2. “LNG is more explosive.”

    Not more explosive than shipping military cargo, which is on of the main recommendations of the feasibility study. Also you will have the same security restrictions for container vessels as LNG that will cause problems for fisherman and others wanting to use the same channel.

  3. Interesting point about the military cargo. I am reminded of the great April 1973 Roseville, CA munitions train explosion that virtually wiped the town of Antelope off the map.

  4. The gravel at Island Mtn.is worth big bucks if there is rail service.This is what its all about.The new rail operators that call their Co. North Western Pacific Railroad have a vested interest in the gravel at Island Mtn.They want to have the tax-payers foot the bill while they reap the benefits.The more I research this whole scam the stinker it gets.

  5. I am reminded of the great April 1973 Roseville, CA munitions train explosion that virtually wiped the town of Antelope off the map.

    I remember that too.

    So close!

  6. For those, like myself, who’d never heard of that explosive event:

    By 1973, Antelope still consisted of little more than a general store and a half-dozen homes. At 8:03 a.m. on April 28 of that year, a rail car loaded with aircraft bombs exploded in the southern part of the Roseville switching yard removing all traces of Antelope. The train was loaded with 7,056 defused Mark 81 aircraft bombs of 250 lb (110 kg) each and tanker cars carrying liquefied petroleum.”

    More at the Wikipedia article on Antelope, CA (Not the best written article, mind.)

    [taking a chance that HTML is allowed in comments here. I’m not seeing a preview function, so my apologies if my code is showing.]

  7. […] January 8, 2008 in Uncategorized | Tags: railroad Hank has the details. […]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *