Measure A showdown in court looms

With an anticipated Sept. 10 hearing in Yreka Superior Court, both sides in the Measure A water ordinance battle have filed deposition and writs supporting their positions on the argument.

Measure A was pulled off the ballot by county clerk Colleen Setzer after it garnered the required number of signatures and the Mount Shasta City Council voted several times to let the voters decide.

Measure A proposes, in part, to prohibit corporations from removing bulk water from the city limits and would allow citizens to compel the city to take action if they felt they had been harmed by cloud seeding.

Setzer revoked acceptance of the initiative, claiming the Mount Shasta city clerk did not have the authority to take certain actions for the initiative including accepting fees and processing documentation. In addition, Setzer said the proponents had used two different versions of the ordinance; one for the filing of the notice of intent, summary and argument for and against, and another for the collection of signatures. Such an action, Setzer declared, is illegal.

The election official question

In filing an appeal to Setzer’s action, proponents claim the county clerk on numerous occasions either directed the proponents to the city clerk or failed to notify them that the city clerk was not the appropriate office to file the petition.

“Assuming, arguendo, that the Respondent was the City of Mt. Shasta's elections official, the Petitioners reasonably relied on the Respondent’s statements and conduct that the appropriate elections official was the City Clerk for the City of Mt. Shasta,” the appeal states. “At numerous stages throughout the complicated process of getting the initiative on the ballot, Petitioners received confirmation from both the Mt. Shasta City Clerk and Respondent Setzer that their petition was moving properly through the appropriate channels; indeed, on April 19, 2010, Setzer certified the petition, which meant that Measure A would be placed before the citizens of Mt. Shasta to vote upon in November.”

County counsel’s office, which is representing Setzer, says the city of Mount Shasta failed to pass a resolution designating deputy city clerk Sandy Studer as the election official.

“In the past, it has been the practice of the City of Mt. Shasta to request the County Elections Official to act as the Elections Official for elections by a formal resolution,” the county counsels’ office states. “The County has established a process that must be followed when a city has an election request or seeks consolidation. In this case, the proponents and the City did not follow the required process.”

Two different versions

The issue of the two versions is also addressed by both sides.

“All rights delineated in this Ordinance, and all provisions, findings, and purposes of this Ordinance, without exception, are self-executing and legally enforceable,” says version one that was filed for the initiative.

“The rights of people and natural communities and the limitations on the privileges of corporations delineated in this Ordinance, beyond the scope of pre-existing law, are specifically enforceable only when the ordinance's prohibitions on water withdrawal, cloud seeding and weather modification are violated,” says the version that was circulated for signatures.

Copyright 2010 Mount Shasta Herald. Some rights reserved