The commission responsible for approving annexations in El Dorado County will allow a citizens group its day in court before pursuing legal action over an El Dorado Irrigation District decision to supply water to an Indian casino.
The El Dorado Local Agen- cy Formation Commission had on its agenda last week a proposal to seek a state attorney general's opinion on the validity of the Shingle Springs Rancheria's annexation to the irrigation district 20 years ago and restrictions approved by LAFCO as part of the annexation agreement.
Several commissioners in June favored putting the question to the attorney general.
In the interim, however, the citizens group Voices for Rural Living sued the irrigation district, saying it failed to comply with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act before agreeing to serve Red Hawk Casino; failed to evaluate the pact's consistency with the general plan; and failed to obey LAFCO law.
Commissioner and county Supervisor Jack Sweeney ar- gued LAFCO should disengage from the debate pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
Jose Henríquez, LAFCO executive officer, agreed that the legal environment had changed in the past month. "Even though LAFCO is not a party to the litigation at this point, we are kind of caught walking a tightrope here."
LAFCO has indicated that its concerns are not with providing water service to the casino per se, but rather with the failure of the irrigation district and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to seek LAFCO's approval for the expanded service.
The irrigation district agreed to serve the casino despite conditions in a 1989 annexation agreement that restricted service on the Shingle Springs Rancheria to 40 residences, a clubhouse and garden plots.
In approving a pact with the tribe in May, the irrigation district board cited a recent opinion by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Solicitor General's Office, which questioned the validity of LAFCO's restrictions. If LAFCO's intent was to regulate use of the tribe's land, the opinion said, a court likely would find that the restrictions are preempted by federal law.
At the June LAFCO meeting, however, Henríquez said that information had been received indicating that neither the tribe nor the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs had signed off on the annexation after LAFCO approved it. As a result, he said, courts might conclude the annexation was invalid from its inception.
Questions that LAFCO officials would like answered include whether conditions in the 1989 annexation agreement restricting service are valid and, if not, whether the remainder of the pact is valid.
The commission in June discussed submitting various questions to the California attorney general's office, legislative counsel and the U.S. Solicitor General's Office. But Sweeney said his goal was for LAFCO to avoid becoming a witness in a lawsuit or incurring legal costs. "If the court finds some new action needs to be taken by LAFCO, I'm sure they will have no problem remanding it back," he said. "I'm delighted some other party is taking it on."
The board voted 5-1, with Briggs dissenting, to drop the matter, at least until the lawsuit is resolved.
Call The Bee's Cathy Locke, (916) 608-7451.
