I want to begin this letter by supporting our local paper. We are lucky to have one. So many communities have lost theirs. While I often don’t agree with The Signal’s editorial opinion and its lean to the right, I respect its reporters and their efforts to be fair. We need our local paper. In the past, (two L.A. papers) had a “wrap” that covered Santa Clarita and our important community issues. Now we have our Signal and I am grateful to the many young and long-term experienced reporters who report our local news.
Santa Clarita has so many important local issues that are of statewide concern. For instance, the burning Chiquita Canyon landfill. We are a vortex for state vs. local control of planning issues, with huge local concern for both building in wildfire areas without adequate evacuation and addressing affordability concerns. Do we have enough water for all these new housing proposals? How will these affect the sustainability of our water resource and water quality?
I have to say, I was dismayed by The Signal’s statements against me in the recent election, especially since their editorial board did not even give me the opportunity to defend myself in a discussion with them. They faulted me for being litigious and accused me of using my past position on the water board (four years ago) to oppose projects which I personally opposed. This is not accurate.
I opposed water supply assessments when on the board over concerns that water for polluted wells was being counted as available when well-head treatment facilities where not yet in place and that drought plans for over-pumping our deep aquifer, the Saugus, were not accurately modeled. I continue to have these concerns. We cannot develop to the point that we over-pump our local water resource or depend on diminishing statewide water resources and put our existing residents in danger of severe water reductions. To me, this is not fair to local residents.
The Signal editorial board also accused me of being “litigious.” Just to clarify, I have only been personally involved in one case, suing the predecessor water agency, Castaic Lake Water Agency, once, over 20 years ago in partnership with former City Council member Jill Klajic and former Newhall County Water District board member Joan Dunn in an attempt to stop the agency’s illegal acquisition of Santa Clarita Water Co. This was the beginning of a water monopoly in our valley. I believed and continue to believe that this was outside their authority. It was a sweetheart deal with the Bonelli family. Folks in this area are still paying for this acquisition in their water rates.
The Signal seeks to confuse litigation brought by out local environmental organization, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment with me. SCOPE is not me. It has a board that votes to support or oppose various proposals and involvement in litigation. SCOPE has been a watchdog group in the Santa Clarita Valley since 1987 and has accomplished many improvements for our valley through court action or settlement agreements on behalf of the public. These actions have preserved open space, oaks and protected our river, our air and water. SCOPE has brought or been involved in several important legal actions. We were one of the five plaintiffs in the litigation against the Newhall Ranch project over water supply and climate change. That litigation resulted in requirements that will help ensure water supply for our valley and the reduction of greenhouse gases. We also litigated the expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, gaining more air quality monitoring for the community.
Public interest ligation is an important tool to advocate for our neighborhoods. The city of Santa Clarita has used it to protect us against the Cemex mining project and the Elsmere Canyon Landfill. The county has used it to try to protect the community of Val Verde against the Chiquita Landfill. Now the public has registered its belief in the importance of not weakening environmental oversight with its opposition to Proposition 45, just defeated.
I believe residents of the SCV have much to thank SCOPE’s board and members for, including their successful protection of open space, legal opposition to such ill-planned projects as the expansion of the Chiquita Canyon landfill and recent opposition to building in wildfire areas without adequate evacuation routes, which raises insurance rates for all of us.
Lynne Plambeck
Newhall
Editor’s note: Ms. Plambeck’s letter is factually incorrect. In particular, she says — twice — that The Signal’s editorial board “accused me of being ‘litigious.’” While we might agree with her own description of herself as “litigious,” particularly through her influence on litigation by SCOPE, that particular accusation was not included in our endorsement editorial favoring her two campaign opponents. The editorial included just one paragraph about Ms. Plambeck, and it says nothing about litigation. It represents our unchanged opinion on Ms. Plambeck’s history as a water board member and we stand by it as written. Here is that paragraph, in its entirety: “The third candidate on the ballot, Lynne Plambeck, has a long-running penchant for attempting to leverage the agency for other purposes, such as blocking developments she opposes. Growth management is not a function of a water agency.”
