Islanders for postponement, PUD against, judge learns

CRESCENT BAR - As expected, the residents of Crescent Bar Island and the Grant County PUD took opposing views last Friday, June 17, in the matter of postponement of the lawsuit the residents have brought against the PUD.

In written arguments delivered to U.S. District Court Judge Justin Quackenbush of the Eastern District of Washington, the PUD argued against the postponement. The residents argued for.

According to Heather Trautman, a representative for residents of the Crescent Bar Condominiums, Quackenbush advised both sides he will announce his decision for or against postponement on June 30.

The argument by the residents was brief, requiring only eight pages. It may be that not much argument was needed. Quackenbush favored the postponement and suggested it after a hearing on June 3 at which he turned down a PUD motion for dismissal.

Mostly, the residents argued for conditions under which the postponement would be acceptable, and they were numerous. The key points were:

Section 4d - "The stay should prohibit the PUD, Port or Crescent from evicting any plaintiff and any non-plaintiff person or entity claiming a right to any lot or condominium on Crescent Bar Island."

Section 4m - "The court should enter an order determining that during the stay, and thereafter for a time period equivalent to the duration of the stay, without plaintiffs' consent, no lease affecting their rights or the rights of any lot or condominium homeowner on the island shall be deemed terminated, lapsed or expired."

Section 4n - "The stay should otherwise remain in place until all FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) proceedings are fully completed. This should include, without limitation, motions for reconsideration and appeals."

Section 6 - "Finally, plaintiffs urge the court to take this opportunity to direct the parties to participate in mediation before a magistrate."

The PUD argument required 28 pages and, often, it laid out points it would likely make or attempt to prove if the case ever goes to trial. It jumped on Quackebush's own contention on June 3 that he would not attempt to make rulings supposedly reserved for FERC.

"It is FERC's, not this court's, role, to decide whether to permit such continued residential occupation of CBI (Crescent Bar Island). This court has no authority to order what FERC is empowered to decide," the PUD said.

The PUD called the suit by the residents premature, "necessitating a stay of plaintiffs' case."

The PUD also argued that a stay and injunction against eviction is useless because the Department of Ecology is going to force a shut-down of the sewer system when its license expires in 2012. The PUD appeared to say that even Quackenbush couldn't do anything about that.

The PUD argued that the leaseholders "failed to comply with their lease obligations" regarding waste water and were therefore in breach of contract, meaning the PUD was free to terminate the lease.

It's not clear if the PUD was referring to Crescent Bar Inc. as the leaseholder who failed or to the residents as leaseholders who failed. Residents have contended they were not given the opportunity to upgrade the waste water system because of the existence of Crescent Bar Inc.

In other points that PUD would likely bring up in a trial, it stated that there are safety hazards, "including fire conflagration," in the residential areas. The PUD said fire authorities have stated such in writing, saying access is not adequate for fire control. And it stated that authorities have declared the fire hydrant pressure to be inadequate.

One of the arguments the residents have made in the lawsuit is that their support for re-licensing was sought by the PUD in exchange for new leases. The PUD addressed that in this argument, saying it was the residents who made the offer to the PUD on two occasions.

"On both occasions, the PUD declined to give any such assurance," the PUD contended.

The PUD also argued that several of the contentions the residents have made, even if true, have passed by the wayside due to statutes of limitation.

"The necessary finding that the plaintiffs will probably prevail on the merits should not exist here," the PUD said. "The only stay this case warrants is a stay of plaintiffs' prosecution of these premature claims."