By Maya Meinert
Special to the Daily Press

LOS ANGELES — Groups of Southern California taxpayers have bonded together to file suit against the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, claiming it illegally used thousands of dollars in bond money to pay lawyers’ fees rather than protect coastal watersheds.

Taxpayers from Ventura and Los Angeles counties, the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund have all filed suit against the conservancy, claiming it improperly used Proposition 50 bond funds.

Proposition 50 — also known as the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 — is a $200 million bond available for protecting coastal watersheds. The conservancy was given $40 million of those funds — $20 million to spend on the protection of the Los Angeles River, and another $20 million for Santa Monica Bay and Ventura County coastal watersheds.

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a local government entity that works in partnership with the conservancy and other park agencies, was also named in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs charge that a grant for $200,000 awarded by the conservancy to the conservation authority in February was misappropriated. Instead of using the funds to restore Ramirez Creek and expand the recreational use of Ramirez Canyon Park and Escondido Canyon as the grant proposal stated, they claim those funds were used to pay for legal fees for both the conservancy and conservation authority’s defense in another lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also argue the money was used to prepare the Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan, “a strategy for public recreational access to people of all abilities to public parkland” in Malibu, according to a conservancy press release.

A second grant for $185,000, awarded in August, expanded the scope of the first grant to include legal fees and payment for the preparation of the Malibu Public Works Plan, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs also claim the Public Works Plan seeks to permit “more intensive land uses than those presently authorized by the Malibu Local Coastal Plan,” according to court documents.

LIP SERVICE DOESN’T CUT IT

Allison Burns, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said that even though the conservancy has already responded with a letter from the state attorney general’s office that states the bond funds may be used in certain ways, she is confident her clients will prevail.

“The letter is the opinion of an attorney who is a counsel for [the conservancy], so he’s an advocate for his client,” Burns said. “We disagree, and we think the best way to resolve this is to have an impartial judge look at the law and the facts, to look at what (the conservancy and the conservation authority) did — if it was legal and proper.”

Joe Edmiston, executive director of the conservancy, disagrees with the allegation that the conservancy is illegally using bond money by paying its legal fees.

“If it was Caltrans building a freeway, and some people didn’t want a freeway near their homes so they sue saying ‘you can’t pay for legal fees’ — Caltrans doesn’t just drop everything,” he said. “You can’t just say, ‘Oh, by the way, you can’t pay your attorneys’ fees.’

“That’s not the way the law operates.”

Edmiston said he thinks the taxpayers who are suing the conservancy just don’t want the public to use land near their homes.

“We’re not going to be intimidated,” he said.