From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: California | North Bay / Marin | Environment & Forest Defense
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. Criticized for New Lawsuit Against California Coastal Commission
by Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Tuesday Apr 9th, 2013 12:21 PM
Oyster Company Makes Baseless Legal Claims in an Attempt to Evade Legal Compliance with the California Coastal Act
The Environmental Action Committee of West Marin today criticized the Drakes Bay Oyster Company for launching a new lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission, saying the corporation will “do anything to avoid playing by the rules.”

“This corporation has made millions of dollars cultivating shellfish in our public waters without any coastal permits, yet thinks the coastal protection rules of California somehow do not apply to it,” said Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. “After being caught violating harbor seal protections, littering beaches and marine waters with thousands of pieces of its plastic debris, spreading invasive species, and developing without any permits, it chose to sue the Commission rather than comply with coastal protection laws. It’s just plain shameful.”

Trainer said the the Drakes Bay Oyster Company sued the California Coastal Commission on April 8th. In the suit, the company is challenging the Commission’s February 7th issuance of a Cease and Desist Order and Restoration Order for the Company’s years of legal non-compliance with the California Coastal Act.

The Commission unanimously issued the Orders in response to the controversial oyster company’s egregious record of legal non-compliance with the Coastal Act. That included operating its boats in harbor seal protection areas, polluting the marine environment with thousands of pieces of plastic debris, neither asking for nor receiving permission to grow Manila clams (an invasive species) and for a laundry list of unpermitted development.

At the Coastal Commission hearing in February, Commissioner Esther Sanchez stated “I find that this is one of the most egregious violations that has happened, that I’ve seen.” Commissioner Robert Garcia, stated that, “from an ecological point of view, it’s almost like an ecological nightmare what’s happened. It’s bad.”

The Company’s lawsuit claims that the Coastal Commission’s Orders were subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The law is clear, however, that regulatory actions by government agencies to protect natural resources or the environment, and enforcement actions, are categorically exempt from CEQA review. The lawsuit also alleges that the Commission has no authority to regulate aquaculture, a claim that ignores well-established law and agreement by the Department of Fish & Wildlife that the Commission does possess that authority.

“After racking up seven years of continuous Coastal Act violations, the company continues to try to evade its legal obligations by filing this baseless lawsuit to stop a State agency from doing its job to protect our coastal resources. This lawsuit is another example that Drakes Bay Oyster Company will do anything to avoid playing by the rules,” said Trainer.

In the 60 days since issuance of the Orders, the Coastal Commission has sent four letters to the Company, but the Company has made no real effort to comply with the Orders. A violation of a cease and desist order or restoration order can result in civil fines up to $6,000 for each day in which the violation persists. Other civil penalties and fines may be applicable as well.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Murray Suid
Wednesday Apr 10th, 2013 10:47 AM
Perhaps DBOC's lawsuit is misguided. But why criticize them for exercising their right to sue? Isn't that our system? When people feel put upon, they have the right to seek redress in the court.

I don't understand the value of criticizing a lawsuit when assessing the suit is the job of the courts? Why call label the suit "baseless" until the court has rendered its decision. To me that would be the right time to report that DBOC's suit is baseless.

Certainly, EAC has the right to comment ahead of time. But doing so might give the impression that EAC doesn't want DBOC to have its day in court. If DBOC's lawsuit is really baseless, the court will establish that fact.

Another problem with this EAC's commentary is that it keeps up the conflict. I'd prefer that those of us on both sides of the issue relax at this point, and let the system resolve the issue. Of course, if lawyers on one side or the other call EAC to testify, that would make total sense to me. That would be the right venue for EAC to bring forward facts showing that DBOC is in the wrong. But making noise in the media may not help our community heal after this long struggle.

by Name
Wednesday Apr 10th, 2013 12:05 PM
Some lawsuits just seem immoral, Suid, and it's not right to sue just because you can.

It's extremely difficult to hold companies to task through legislation for every bit of environmental damage they do, and when companies like Drakes are funded by sleazy people like the Koch brothers, it becomes even more difficult.

I think most regular people just hope that the people who run Drakes would run it more ethically.

btw, what is your financial connection to this issue, Suid?