Protect the Historic Amador Waterways

• August 29, 2005: AWA recertifies EIR and reapproves transmission pipeline project
  Read AWA's Supplemental Staff Report (response to public comments from 8/16/05 meeting) (PDF, 1MB)
• August 16, 2005: Public comments on AWA's response
  Read public, legal council, and hydrological expert comments to AWA's response
• July 27, 2005: AWA releases response to public comments on revised EIR
  A B&W printed version of this file is available from PHAW for $10; please email us for details.)
• October 18, 2004: California Department of Fish & Game and others submit official written comments on the EIR Revision.
  Click here to read some of the comment letters
• September 3, 2004: AWA releases revised Water Resources portion of EIR
  Click here to download the 57-page revised section (PDF, 4.4MB)
  Click here for the AWA's notification of availability and explanation of the comment and recertification process (PDF, 15KB)
• August 6, 2004: Superior Court orders AWA to decertifiy the EIR and cease pipeline construction until the water resources section of the EIR is brought into compliance with CEQA.
  Click here for the 4-page ruling (PDF, 168KB)
• July 27, 2004: Superior Court Judge Susan Harlan listened to attorneys from the water agency and PHAW debate proposed language for the judgment and a writ of mandate.
• April 9, 2004: The Third District Court of Appeal revised its opinion of March 12, instructing the AWA to set aside its certification of the FEIR.
  Read the modifications to the CEQA Reversal opinion (PDF, 57KB)
• March 12, 2004: The Third District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of PHAW, reversing the Amador Superior Court's decision.
  Read the initial CEQA Reversal opinion (PDF, 122KB)
• March 2, 2004: The Third District Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in PHAW's appeal.
• July 16, 2003: PHAW submits its reply to the AWA brief in the appeal of the CEQA lawsuit.
  Click here for the 38-page brief (PDF, 1.2MB)
• June 26, 2003: AWA submits its brief in the appeal of the CEQA lawsuit.
  Click here for the 42-page brief (PDF, 1.6MB)
• April 24, 2003: PHAW submits its opening brief in the appeal of the CEQA lawsuit.
  Click here for the 50-page brief (PDF, 1.6MB)
• February 5, 2003: Superior Court Judge Susan Harlan denied AWA's petition to recover costs on the administrative record for the CEQA lawsuit. The ruling allows AWA to collect a total of $358 from PHAW for miscellaneous charges such as filing fees, etc. PHAW had acknowledged liability for these fees during the petition hearing. The AWA had been seeking more than $46,000 (see below). PHAW has always felt this petition was an intimidation tactic and is thrilled with the outcome.
  Click here to read the entire ruling.
• January 30, 2003: Superior Court heard AWA's petition to recover costs on the CEQA lawsuit. The Agency sought over $46,000 for preparation of the administrative record, which amounted to $7/page based on the size of the Adminstrative Record. PHAW elected to prepare the adminstrative record (and AWA agreed to that), therefore the Agency sought reimbursement for unauthorized work. The Water Agency's cost claim was outrageous even if the Agency had been authorized to prepare the Administrative Record. Further, the Water Agency "incurred" about half of the cost of the Administrative Record after the record had supposedly been finalized and in the hands of the AWA General Manager, Jim Abercrombie. The Water Agency was also seeking reimbursement for attorney fees that were not recoverable.
• December 13, 2002: PHAW filed its appeal of Amador Superior Court Judge Susan Harlan's decision upholding the Amador Water Agency's decision to abandon the historic Amador Canal. PHAW is proceeding with its appeal because it does not believe the Amador Water Agency followed the law when it determined that drying up local streams was not a signficant adverse environmental impact on the environment. PHAW believes that Judge Harlan was overly deferential to the Water Agency's decision and ignored the glaring omissions in the Agency's environmental document. The Agency's own data clearly shows that streams will be dewatered when the Amador Canal is closed. This change in the existing environment will have significant adverse effects on local streams and vegetation that grows along these streams' courses. PHAW's appeal will be reviewed by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.
• September 27, 2002: Judge Harlan ruled against PHAW in the CEQA lawsuit.
  Read the entire ruling (PDF, 547KB)
• September 6, 2002: Superior Court Judge Susan Harlan issued an order denying PHAW's request to consider the DF&G letter. This means she will not consider the letter as evidence in this case. However, the powerful information in the DF&G letter is still out there, and PHAW's legal team will certainly attempt to use it as evidence in an appeal in the CEQA suit.
• August 15, 2002: A Department of Fish & Game letter was filed with California Superior Court in Jackson as a supporting document for PHAW's CEQA lawsuit against the Amador Water Agency. With this letter, the Department of Fish and Game is supporting PHAW's allegations that the pipeline project will cause significant environmental impact that needs to be mitigated. The AWA's environmental impact report states that there will not be significant impact, which triggered PHAW to proceed with litigation to prove that the EIR is faulty.
• August 12, 2002: Department of Fish and Game (DFG) sent a 12-page letter to AWA stating that the pipeline project's Environmental Impact Report is inadequate, and that DFG cannot issue the necessary Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) without further environmental study and mitigation by AWA. The letter cites several animal and plant species that will be significantly impacted by the project.
  Read the entire DF&G letter (PDF, 60KB)
• June 18, 2002: PHAW members packed the Superior Courtroom in Jackson to hear presentation of arguments in the CEQA lawsuit challenging the competency and technical accuracy of the agency's Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR concluded that dewatering the Amador Canal would have no significant environmental impact on the area, despite dozens of protests by concerned citizens and PHAW members. A standing-room-only crowd watched as PHAW attorney J. William Yeates of Sacramento beautifully presented his arguments, including a vivid illustration of the anticpated reduction in creek flow using a paper cup.