Nipomo

A judge has dismissed an environmentalist’s lawsuit against the Nipomo Community Services District.

Gordon Hensley of Los Osos, executive director of the San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper group, filed the suit last year in protest of the district’s long-term water plans.

The suit claimed the district’s water management plan should be rewritten because it relies on Santa Maria providing water, which the suit said is still only an agreement, not a contract.

District and county officials use the management plan to figure out if there is enough water to support new growth.

The plan cannot be used to support development, Hensley argued, because there is no guarantee the water will be available.

San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet ruled the plan was adequate and accurate.

General Manager Bruce Buel noted the district has an allocation program that limits how many new homes can use district water each year.

— Larissa Van Beurden-Doust

If I find anything more substantive about Judge Picquet’s ruling, I’ll post it as well. The unfortunate thing is that as I noted in my prior posts on this lawsuit, is that it was purely a political ploy by those not even in this community to try and influence what is happening in Nipomo. And, what is worse, is that it was a complete waste of the NCSD rate payer’s money. The NCSD was forced to defend this frivolous piece of litigation. Thanks to Gordon Hensley and Attorney Babak Naficy we have wasted precious resources that could have been better allocated. My advice to Mr. Hensley is to stick with Los Osos’ problems (his own community). There is plenty there with which he can deal.

Yet, comes Coastkeeper, the Central Coast’s environmental gadfly and based on two letters from Mr. Henlsey has concluded SAIC Engineering and their $60,000 report are all wrong. Just a hunch, but I’m betting on SAIC. I haven’t followed up yet on this lawsuit recently, but will do so, and post what I learn. I’m still wanting to know who these anonymous Nipomo residents are who are helping Coastkeeper save us from ourselves! More to come.

Coastkeeper brings this action on its own institutional behalf and on behalf of its members including members who live or work in San Luis Obispo County and in particular the Nipomo Mesa area.

Now, the lawsuit specifically identifies Mr. Hensley as an interested party, and a plaintiff; however, the lawsuit never identifies any of these other “members who live or work . . . in . . . the Nipomo Mesa area.” Clearly Mr. Hensley has no ties whatsoever to Nipomo, yet he is bringing this lawsuit.

I tried several times over the last few days to identify the other Nipomo based individuals who are acting as plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I exchaged several emails with Mr. Hensley as well as Coaskeeper’s attorney, Babak Naficy. In this post, I will reprint this email exchange and comment on some of that exchange. My email exchange appears immediately below. It appears in reverse chronological order, meaning the most recent exchanges appear first:

—–Original Message—–
From: NipomoLaw
To: babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net
Cc: g.r.hensley@sbcglobal.net; NipomoLaw
Sent: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:49:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Coastkeeper v NCSD

Dear Attorney Babak,

The point of my inquiry is that absent some compelling interest, such as when litigation involves a minor, or sexual abuse, I think that the party plaintiffs should always be publically identified, since they are using the judicial system in the United States, and in particular California. Our judicial system is open to the public. Our court rooms are open to the public. Our trials are held in public. We don’t hide behind closed doors or keep our identities hidden when we file a lawsuit that becomes a public record. You really did not address my question by pointing out that membership lists are generally protected. I would agree with you; however, once you commence litigation, then I disagree that you can hide behind any constitutional protections, absent some special circumstance. Since you refuse to voluntarily provide the information I have requested, I will seek it elsewhere.

Thank you for your reply.

Regards,

Guy W. Murray

—–Original Message—–
From: Babak Naficy <babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net>
To: nipomolaw@aol.com
Cc: G.R. Hensley <g.r.hensley@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Coastkeeper v NCSD

Dear Mr. Murray,

While I appreciate your interest in this lawsuit, I do not believe that your inquiries are inappropriate. I am not sure what the point of your inquiry really is, but as we are in litigation, I must respectfully decline your request. You should be aware, however, that a long line of federal and state cases have confirmed that the membership
and supporter list of groups such as the Coastkeeper are confidential, even in the litigation context. Under some circumstances, a court may require a group to identify one or more members in order to establish standing, but such a request must be made in the context of litigation. Moreover, where the petitioner’s counsel resides or recreates has absolutely no bearing on the issues in the lawsuit.

I am sorry I am not able to provide you with the informaiton you seek, but please do not hesitate to ask any other questions.

regards,

Babak Naficy

nipomolaw@aol.com wrote: Dear Attorney Naficy,

At the request of Mr. Gordon Hensley, I am following up with you on my original request that Coastkeeper provide me with the list of individuals who they claim are represented by you and Coastkeeper in this lawsuit, and who specifically live on or in the Nipomo Mesa area, as alleged in that lawsuit. I am not asking whether there are members who live in Nipomo who are also members of Coastkeeper. My question is more focused and narrow. I would like to know the names of the individuals mentioned, but not identified in the lawsuit on page 3, paragraph 4, lines 15 to 17 wherein you, as Coastkeeper’s attorney allege:

Coastkeeper brings this action on its own institutional behalf and on behalf of its members including members who live or work in San Luis Obispo County and in particular the Nipomo Mesa area.

I think that is a fair request. Now that a formal lawsuit has been filed, I see no privilege in allowing them to remain anonymous. I think the public is entitled to know who you and Coastkeeper represents in this lawsuit.

Mr. Hensley brings up an interesting issue in his most recent email. He states Coastkeeper has participated in the public process for this project for some time, have clearly created standing, submitted substantial comment, and exhausted its administrative remedies. Can you elaborate for me specifically what Coastkeeper has done to
participate in the public process? Have representatives of Coastkeepers attended public NCSD meetings? Was this you and/or Mr. Hensley?

What has Coastkeepers done to clearly create standing in this lawsuit? And, what administrative remedies have they exhausted?

While I’m pleased to hear both you and Mr. Hensley live, work, recreate, and generally enjoy the environment of San Luis Obispo County, I’m not certain just how that gives you standing to bring this suit against the NCSD, without some more formal nexus to Nipomo. Again, I request that you divulge the names of the individuals you
named but did not identify in your complaint.

I thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation.

Regards,

Guy W. Murray
Nipomo Resident (13 years)

—–Original Message—–
From: G.R. Hensley
To: nipomolaw@aol.com
Cc: babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Coastkeeper v NCSD]

Mr. Murray,

As an attorney I’m sure you understand that the process allowing an individual or organization to participate in the public process are clearly defined. While you do not understand our corporate structure and what corporate records are public information, I assure you once again that residents of Nipomo are among our 1200 Coastkeeper member/supporters on the central coast.

SLO Coastkeeper has participated in the public process for this project for some time. We have clearly created standing, submitted substantial comment, and exhausted our administrative remedies. It is unfortunate that during the administrative process NCSD Board and Staff were unwilling to accommodate our relatively simple request to provide the public and SLO County a reliable water master plan. However, I am confident that we will arrive at a satisfactory outcome through the lawsuit that will provide sound basis for future planning and growth management decisions.

Beyond resident members/supporters, regarding the nexus you mistakenly feel is absent, both Mr. Naficy and myself live, work, recreate, and generally enjoy the environment of San Luis Obispo County, the resources of which will be directly impacted by land use planning and water management decisions that will rely on the NCSD UWMP.

Should you need further legal information , please direct your questions to our attorney: Babak Naficy, Law Office 738 Higuera St., Ste B San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805-593-0926

Sincerely,

Gordon R. Hensley, SLO COASTKEEPERoastkeeper
Environment in the Public Interest
EPI-Center, 1013 Monterey St., Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Ph: 805-781-9932 FAX: 805-781-9384

EPI / San Luis Obispo COASTKEEPER® Program is the only environmental
watchdog dedicated solely to enforcement of water quality, watershed
protection, and coastal planning regulations on the Central Coast.

San Luis Obispo COASTKEEPER®, a program of Environment in the Public
Interest (EPI) is a trademark and service mark of WATERKEPER®
Alliance, Inc. and is licensed for use herein.

nipomolaw@aol.com wrote: Dear Mr. Hensley,

Thank you for your email response. The purpose of my request is to identify those individuals who you claim, in your lawsuit have some nexus to Nipomo. Despite the fact you claim to have lived in San Luis Obispo County for 53 years, I don’t see any nexus you have with Nipomo. I know most of the attorneys in Nipomo, and I don’t think attorney Naficy has any direct nexus to Nipomo. Yet, the lawsuit you both filed against our locally and publicly elected community services district, specifically alleges that:

” Coastkeeper brings this action on its own institutional behalf and on behalf of its members including members who live or work in San Luis Obispo County and in particular the Nipomo Mesa area.”

So, what I would like to know is who are the members who live or work in particular on the Nipomo Mesa area? I don’t want your entire list of members. I think that would be inappropriate; however, Coastkeeper has now filed lawsuit, and has now injected itself into Nipomo’s local public policy decision making process. I think that as a resident of Nipomo I am entitled to know exactly who the members are who your organization claims to represent for purposes of this lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is a matter of public record. I believe that this information is not protected by any legal privilege or doctrine. Certainly your organization would have to disclose this information in the discovery process if asked. I intend to ask our CSD’s attorneys to specifically ask this question.

You claim your group is essentially a watch dog group for government; but, who watches you? Everything the NCSD does in terms of public policy making is done under the Brown Act, and in the direct light of day. There are no secret board members. Public meetings are advertised up front. The public is allowed to attend the meetings and have public comment on specific agenda items. Now, comes Coastkeeper, and they want
to reverse the publicly elected local CSD’s policy making decisions, and you refuse to identify who you people are. You aren’t elected by anybody. As far as I can tell the only two individuals the lawsuit does identify, you and Attorney Naficy do not live in Nipomo. You don’t identify anyone else who actually lives here in Nipomo. If it’s just you two individuals, what business do you have bringing this lawsuit? You need something more than that you serve the “public interest.” So far I don’ t see how you are doing that.

So, that is why I ask you to identify the individuals your organization claims to represent in bringing this lawsuit. I think it a fair question. I don’t see how you can hide what you are doing, once you inject yourselves into the legal system via this lawsuit. That is not the way that our legal system works. Unless there is some privacy of litigants are generally not protected. In this case where your organization seeks to significantly alter the public policy decisions of a locally elected CSD, via a lawsuit, I think we who vote, live, work, and breathe here in Nipomo are entitled to know this information.

So, respectfully, I again ask you to identify on behalf of “Coastkeeper” the individuals, here in Nipomo, who are part of this lawsuit.

I thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation, and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

Guy W. Murray
Nipomo Resident (13 years)

—–Original Message—–
From: G.R. Hensley
To: NipomoLaw@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 02:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Coastkeeper v NCSD]

Note: forwarded message attached.
Attached Message
From: G.R. Hensley
To: Babak Naficy
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Coastkeeper v NCSD]
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 02:30:13 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Mr. Murray,

San Luis Obispo COASTKEEPER®, a program of Environment in the Public Interest, is organized for the purpose of ensuring that public officials charged with responsibilities for water quality, watershed and land use planning, and environmental protection comply fully with sound planning principles and with all environmental laws of the
State.

It is not clear from your email what the purpose of your request is, but our member/supporter list is not available to the public. However, residents of Nipomo are among our mebers and supporters and I have
worked with several environmental organizations on the mesa over the years.

Should you be interested in becoming a supporing member, please feel free to contact me.

Gordon R. Hensley (53 yr resident of SLO Co), SLO COASTKEEPER
Environment in the Public Interest
EPI-Center, 1013 Monterey St., Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Ph: 805-781-9932 FAX: 805-781-9384

EPI / San Luis Obispo COASTKEEPER® Program is the only environmental
watchdog dedicated solely to enforcement of water quality, watershed
protection, and coastal planning regulations on the Central Coast.

San Luis Obispo COASTKEEPER®, a program of Environment in the Public
Interest (EPI) is a trademark and service mark of WATERKEPER®
Alliance,
Inc. and is licensed for use herein.

Babak Naficy wrote:
From: NipomoLaw@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 02:17:57 EDT
Subject: Coastkeeper v NCSD
To: babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net
CC: GRHensley@sbcglobal.net, NipomoLaw@aol.com

Dear Attorney Naficy and Gordon Hensley:

I read with interest the San Luis Obispo Tribune article this morning about your lawsuit. Most interesting to me was your respective obvious detachment from our local Nipomo Community. Since neither of you work,
live, or otherwise have a connection to Nipomo, can you please identify those individuals in the petition on page 3, paragraph 4, lines 15 to 17 wherein you allege:

Coastkeeper brings this action on its own institutional behalf and on behalf of its members including members who live or work in San Luis Obispo County and in particular the Nipomo Mesa area.

Please identify with specificity the individuals who are your members who actually live and work on the Nipomo Mesa.

I thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation.

Regards,

Guy W. Murray
Nipomo Resident (13 years).

As you can see, after an exchange of several emails, some directly with Mr. Hensley, and then the rest with his attorney, neither of them would agree to identify one individual who actually lives or works in Nipomo who is affiliated with this lawsuit. I’m beginning to wonder whether they have even one individual who has asked them to bring this suit. I think the email exchange speaks for itself. It’s abundantly clear they have no interest or intention of voluntarily disclosing who, if anyone in Nipomo is actually tied to this lawsuit. Mr. Hensley and Attorney Naficy evaded my request at every turn, and attempted to change the subject to something it was not. It’s also abundantly clear from this email exchange they want to avoid any outside light or questioning of their legitimacy in bringing this lawsuit.

Mr. Hensely stated in one of this email exchanges that:

SLO Coastkeeper has participated in the public process for this project for some time. We have clearly created standing, submitted substantial comment, and exhausted our administrative remedies. It is unfortunate that during the administrative process NCSD Board and Staff were unwilling to accommodate our relatively simple request to provide the public and SLO County a reliable water master plan.

I have obtained from Michael LeBrun, the NCSD General Manager, the actual extent of Coastkeeper’s public input into The Urban Water Management Plan, and it is far from substantial, as Mr. Hensley claims. I have scanned the documents as jpg files and will post them here for the general public to review. In order to see them in their entirety you can right click on the document and see if it will show th entire document. If that does not work, you can view the entire set of documents here. You can enlarge each one to a size large enough to read them clearly by clicking on the documents. If you have difficulty, feel free to email me or leave a comment below.

The first document is a two page letter from Gordon Hensley to Michael LeBrun, NCSD General Manager, dated 1/10/06:

On 1/10/06, The day before the NCSD Board was to consider action on the draft 2005 Urban Water Management Plan update, Mr. Hensley faxed this letter to Michael LeBrun, NCSD’s General Manager, requesting that the NCSD extend public comment an additional 30 days. As Mr. Hensley noted in his letter, the draft update had been available to the general public, including Mr. Hensley since 12/5/05, already over 30 days. Mr. Hensley’s complaint: Since Christmas was in December, the public just didn’t have time to adequately review the draft. Well, I didn’t feel Christmas inhibited my ability to review anything on file at the NCSD about this update. Did you?

I think what likely happened, is that Mr. Hensley for some reason suddenly became interested in this issue, had not been following it, and at the last minute jumped into the fray wanting the NCSD to halt or delay consideration on the draft while he could figure out what to do about it. I find it interesting that while Mr. Hensley found comment on the draft so critically important, he just didn’t have the time to personally make the trip all the way from Los Osos, where he lives, to Nipomo to attend the NCSD meeting and make a personal appearance and public comment.

In response to Mr. Hensley’s faxed letter, Michael LeBrun, NCSD’s General Manager called Mr. Hensley on 1/12/06, and noted his conversation with him in the following memo:

I think the memo is pretty self explanatory. The NCSD was on a time table in order to approve the UMWP in order to proceed with NCSD’s plan to obtain supplemental water. Public comment remained on schedule, and Mr. Hensley was going to provide further public comment within the timeline originally set forth, which he did, in a two page letter dated 1/17/06, posted below:

Mr. Hensley made a couple of errors in this correspondence. First, he claimed there is no stipulation because not all parties have agreed. This is untrue. There is a stipulation, even though not all parties have agreed. The stipulation is binding upon those parties, the vast majority, who have executed the document. Those who did not sign the stipulation are now still in the midst of trying this lawsuit. That does not mean there is not stipulation. It only means that not all parties to the litigation have signed the stipulation.

Second, he claimed the NCSD was purchasing 2500 acre feet of water from the State Water Project. This too is untrue. The NCSD signed a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU with the City of Santa Maria. You can see that document on the NCSD’s website here. According to the MOU, the NCSD is to purchase up to 3000 acre feet per year, from the City, not the State Water Project. Nipomo’s voters previously rejected an opportunity to hook up to state water. This water will come from Santa Maria, not the state water project.

Mr. Hensley’s last public input on the UWMP was a three page letter dated 1/23/06, which you can see here, here, and here. Again, Mr. Hensley is just too busy to personally attend the NCSD board meeting and personally provide his public comment. Rather, he shoots off these three letters to the NCSD General Manager, and Board President. This is the entire extent of Mr. Hensley’s public comment on this multi-million dollar project.

He identifies no one, who reviewed the UWMP on behalf of Coastkeepers and found it lacking in anyway. He doesn’t disclose on whose behalf the lawsuit is actually brought. He makes some wild claims about uncertainty in the future water supply, and claims the NCSD has not sufficiently prepared the UWMP report. He doesn’t show up once to any NCSD meeting to address the Board of Directors. Rather, he sends three short letters, and then files a lawsuit on behalf of anonymous parties in an effort to stall or interrupt NCSD’s attempts to secure supplemental water.

I have attempted to obtain documentation to establish how much it cost NCSD ratepayers to produce the UWMP. I have also requested documentation on the amount it has cost to defend the lawsuit thus far. Once I obtain that documentation, I will post it on this site for public review.

I find it an abuse of the system to allow what Coastkeepers has done in this case. If they are truly a watchdog group, they would have nothing to hide. They would be proud of what they are doing. They would readily identify individuals with whom they are partnered in this litigation. I say let the sunshine of day fully illuminate exactly what Coastkeepers has done, and is doing in our community. They have been elected by no one. They prefer to work without identifying exactly who they are. They attempt to thwart the public policy of a publically elected body through litigation. More to come, as information becomes available.

It’s too risky to approve more building in Nipomo based on the assumption that the town will get water from Santa Maria, according to a local environmentalist who is suing the town’s services district to redo its long-term water plans.

The Nipomo Community Services District has been working for several years to secure water from its neighbor to the south and build an $8 million pipeline to import the water.

Gordon Hensley, executive director of the San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper group, said that water is not guaranteed, but the district’s recently adopted water management plan states as fact that Nipomo will pipe in 3,000 acre-feet — enough to serve 6,000 homes — a year from Santa Maria.

The Tribune notes that Mr. Hensley wants the NCSD to re-write its Urban Water Management Plan, adopted 1/26/06. You can read that plan from the NCSD’s website here. The Tribune outlined why Mr. Hensley wants the NCSD to re-write this plan:

Nipomo’s management plan outlines the town’s water availability based on several supply-and-demand scenarios. District and county officials use the plan to figure whether there is enough water to support new growth.

Last week, Hensley filed a lawsuit attempting to get the district to rewrite the plan.

“Since every development proposal made from now on will look to this document to justify continuing the rapid-pace conversion of agricultural land and habitat on the Mesa, the plan must provide an accurate evaluation the district, the county and the public can rely on with certainty,” said Hensley, a former member of the Los Osos Community Services District board.

The suit claims that the plan should be overturned for two reasons:

• Santa Maria could decide at any time not to sell Nipomo water, or an environmental review could find that a pipeline is not feasible;

• A settlement in a nine-year-old lawsuit over groundwater rights in the Santa Maria area is still not complete.

Ok, now we’re getting to the root of this lawsuit. Let’s see just what we know. There’s a guy named Gordon Hensley, who is the executive director of some group called San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper. The Tribune describes him as a “local environmentalist.” If you go to their website here, you will see it appears to be some environmental group, headed up by this Gordon Hensley. But, if you click on any of their links, you will see they have absolutely nothing listed under their self-described categories of FEATURES | CAMPAIGNS | ACT NOW | EDUCATION | EVENTS. Absolutely nothing! They do nothing? Yet, their website has a neat little logo

saying they are some kind of environment group in the public interest, and they further describe themselves as:

“The San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper is a program of Environment in the Public Interest (EPI) dedicated to enforcement of water quality, watershed, and coastal planning regulations in Northern Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Southern Monterey County.”

I’m not exactly sure what that means, or what it has to do with them filing a lawsuit against the NCSD; but, perhaps as time goes along we will learn more about their group, their agenda, and just what they want.

What else do we know? Well, there’s Gordon Hensley. What about him? Well, he doesn’t live in Nipomo. He actually resides somewhere in Los Osos, because at one time according to the Tribune, he served on the Los Osos Community Services District. You can see Gordon’s smiling face below:

And also over at his voter information website here, when he ran for the Los Oso CSD. What the Tribune story neglects to say is that Mr. Hensley didn’t do such a great job over there in Los Osos as a CSD Director. In fact, the Los Osos voters FIRED him for several reasons, including, according to a prior Tribune story:

• Violating basic First Amendment rights of the public to speak and criticize government in public meetings — by repeated use of fear, intimidation and lawsuits against private citizens.

• Wasting public resources for years to promote a “bait and switch” sewer, rejected by a majority of people who just wanted the darn thing moved.

• Ignoring citizens and furthering speculative land interests, and driving local residents from their homes with excessive costs for water, fire and sewer services.

• Spending citizens’ money for electioneering. Starting construction with fewer than 30 days before a vote, engaging in “scorched earth policy” and a “spend-into-submission” strategy designed to further intimidate the voters.

• Violating environmental law by changing from downtown ponds to a “buried” plant to one 40 feet tall without California Environmental Quality Act disclosure, when the cheapest alternative was always out of town.

• Misleading vacant land owners who cannot build with this sewer because there is not enough water.

• Misleading citizens about sludge and spills. How is trucking sludge to Santa Maria sustainable or responsible?

• And locating a sewer in a drainage ditch, a “sewer-spill-away” from the back side of a national estuary. How is this “good” for the bay? All sewer plants spill. Why would this one be different?

Why did the “CSD 3″:

• Accept bids 46 percent over engineer’s estimate, against all professional advice?

• Award the same engineer, who estimated wrong, a $7.5 million management contract based on percentage of the high bids? They get paid more when it costs us more. Outrageous!

• Attempt to remove citizens by force for asking questions about board financial conflict of interests?

• Reduce meetings to once a month, with 40 items about fiduciary responsibility on the waiting list, never to be heard?

• Hijack public TV Channel 20 for electioneering, even after legal complaints were filed?

• Cancel citizen committees and hide financial files from directors?

• Conceal information to promote a fire tax three times the necessary amount, which was defeated by voters who developed the cheaper solution?

• Lie about water board authority when it can’t mandate sewer type or location, according to state law?

• Lien peoples’ homes without a vote and then complain about lawsuits? What do you think people are going to do, with $200-plus a month, with no vote, with no choice?

• Lastly, calm themselves about propaganda being stuffed into our mailboxes at an alarming rate? We all know that marketing is not reality; smart voters won’t be fooled or scared again.

Yep. This is the same Mr. Hensley who Los Osos voters recalled from public office. Gosh, how lucky are we down here in Nipomo to be able to benefit from Mr. Henlsey’s timely filing of this lawsuit to save ourselves from our own elected NCSD Directors for adopting this horribly flawed Urban Water Management Plan?

I guess after being thrown out of public office, Mr. Hensley had some extra time on his hands, and apparently contacts with a San Luis Obispo Attorney, Babak Naficy. Umm . . . that name sounds familiar–where have we heard that before down in Nipomo? That’s right, Babak Naficy of the EDC represented our own local environmental group Save the Mesa, in their lawsuit extorting a couple hundred thousand dollars from the Woodlands Developers. They didn’t stop the project; but, did hit a payday.

So, you might ask, why is a San Luis Obispo attorney, representing a guy in Los Osos who is part of a so called environmental group, suing the Nipomo Community Services District? What ties are there here in Nipomo? Good question. According to page 3, paragraph 4, lines 15 to 17 of the petition, Mr. Hensley through his attorney Naficy states:

Coastkeeper brings this action on its own institutional behalf and on behalf of its members including members who live or work in San Luis Obispo County and in particular the Nipomo Mesa area.

Ok, so who are these members who live or work in particular on the Nipomo Mesa? Not one person is identified in the lawsuit! Is our local elected water board being sued by local Nipomo residents who are for some reason hiding behind a wall of anonymity? Why is that? Of what are they ashamed? Why not identify themselves in this lawsuit? If its for the public’s benefit why can’t we publicly thank our fellow residents for bringing this fabulous lawsuit on our collective behalf?

I know, let’s write Attorney Babak Naficy who’s email is babaknaficy@sbcglobal.net, and ask who are these masked clients who are suing on our behalf. I have sent such an email, and encourage you to do th same. You can also reach Gordon Hensley at g.r.hensley@sbcglobal.net. Let’s send a thank you email to Babak and Gordon expressing our gratitude for filing this lawsuit against our local CSD board, in an attempt to disrupt several years of work by the NCSD and a potential $8 million pipe line, and take more of our rate payer money to defend this idiotic lawsuit. And why? Well according to Hensley the lawsuit is to halt “the rapid-pace conversion of agricultural land and habitat on the Mesa.”

That’s what this lawsuit is about. It’s about growth. It’s about some unidentified individuals’ warped sense rapid-pace conversion of agricultural land and habitat on the mesa. Something that is absolutely not happening. This is another prevarication, a canard of grand proportion. One that potentially can have a very detrimental impact on our community:

If the lawsuit is successful, it could wreak havoc on the district’s attempts to manage the struggling groundwater supply, LeBrun said.

The county Local Area Formation Commission required the district to adopt the plan before any annexations into the agency’s boundaries can be completed.

At the request of the services district and the South County Advisory Council, county supervisors in December raised the water shortage severity level to the highest degree.

District officials are trying to get new developers to annex into the district so they don’t form their own mutual water companies. Mutual water companies would allow people to pump from the groundwater basin and give them priority to that water.

If the aquifer continued to decline, a mutual water company could continue pumping, while the district would have to look for more supplemental water.

The lawsuit “is a very big deal,” LeBrun said. “It is in the interest of every customer in this district that we develop supplemental sources of water. This document is one of our first steps.”

Despite the potential disruption this lawsuit might bring, NCSD officials are quite confident they have laid the appropriate groundwork, and properly prepared The Urban Water Management Plan:

Michael LeBrun, general manager of the services district, acknowledged that the future is not certain. But a consulting firm he described as top-notch prepared the document and only included water sources if they reached a certain level of certainty.

“What I understand is we met the threshold,” LeBrun said. “We feel that the document is solid.”

The district has worked out a deal with the city of Santa Maria that Nipomo will get 3,000 acre-feet of water per year. The district also paid the city a deposit for that entitlement.

Santa Maria has more water than its future growth will need, said Dwayne Chisam, the city’s utility director.

Santa Maria already sells water to southern neighbor Orcutt, Chisam said. It also benefits ratepayers by selling it to neighbors.

The settlement in the long-running lawsuit was signed last summer.

It will be interesting to watch this litigation unfold. I hope the District’s Counsel will take no prisoners and go after these guys in as aggressive a manner as the law allows. In the meantime, I urge you to drop Attorney Naficy and Gordon Hensley an email and ask them to identify who, if anyone are the real parties in interest down here in Nipomo. Is anyone who actually lives down here in any way involved in this litigation?

Another question that comes to mind about growth is how much growth does Mr. Hensley and his group feel is appropriate for us down here in Nipomo? We already have a growth cap at 1.8%. This is lower than that of the county generally which is at 2.3%. Make no mistake, this is an effort by an extreme minority not to control growth–but to halt it completely. That is exactly what this lawsuit is about. These people will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.