Officials call for Redwood City’s salt pond protections

Nearly 60 political officials and organizations signed onto two separate letters both directed to the Biden administration on Tuesday, calling for the end of a legal battle over the salt pond, owned by Cargill, Inc.

“The Trump administration’s actions threaten the health and stability of our ecosystems and water resources,” read the letter signed by 10 representatives. “We urge you to uphold federal environmental laws and protect clean water and wetlands by withdrawing the appeal and implementing the court’s order to conduct a legally sound jurisdictional determination.”

On Oct. 5, Judge William Alsup, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled the 1,400 acres of salt ponds owned by Cargill Inc. fell under the protection of the federal Clean Water Act, a decades-old legislation intended to protect and prevent pollution in U.S. waters. In the decision, Alsup states that the land is protected due to being wet, “have important connections to the Bay,” and have the potential to become inundated if levees were not in place.

The decision overturned a determination made in 2019 by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration, which claimed the salt ponds were not actually “waters of the United States,” but “fast lands” exempt from Clean Water Act protections. The Trump administration’s determination on the salt ponds was in response to a request by Cargill, Inc. and its developer partner DMB Pacific Ventures.

DMB submitted and then withdrew a proposal to build 12,000 homes on the salt ponds in 2012, but continued to engage the community about future opportunities for the site. That effort was dubbed Reimagine Saltworks.

Regardless of whether the EPA decides to withdraw its appeal, DMB and Cargill, Inc. intend on pursuing its appeal filed alongside federal action in December, said a statement from David Smith, consulting counsel for DMB Pacific Ventures representing Cargill, Inc.

“We continue to disagree with the District Court’s ruling on critical facts, application of court precedent and lack of deference to the expertise of two presidential administrations, including the Obama Army Corps of Engineers, that concluded the site is not subject to the Clean Water Act,” read the statement. “With that in mind, we do not intend to withdraw our Notice of Appeal.”

Eric Buescher, an attorney with Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy representing multiple organizations seeking to overturn the 2019 EPA determination, said the lawsuit was filed against the EPA, not Cargill, and it’s unclear how the courts will treat DMB’s appeal as interveners if the federal government withdraws.

It’s likely the administration could also ask for an extension on the brief due date of March 12, said Buescher, noting extensions have been requested for other federal clean water cases with briefs due in February and March.

“We feel pretty strongly about this one and feel Judge Alsup got it right,” said Buescher. “We expect and hope that would be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit if the appeal is pursued and if it’s not pursued that’s a win as well.”

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, signed her name to one of two letters and lambasted the Trump administration for appealing the case in an email statement. Supporting Alsup’s ruling, she echoed sentiments shared in the letters calling for the appeal to be dropped and the lands to be restored.

“The Biden administration should drop this unnecessary appeal and allow the area to be restored to wetlands and protect our region from sea level rise,” said Eshoo.

Similarly, newly elected state Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo, raised the importance of protecting the Bay in danger of sea level rise. Becker said dropping the appeal would be a “no-brainer” in terms of reversing the “hijacked” process by the Trump administration.

“Withdrawing the EPA’s appeal of the judge’s ruling is a simple solution to a decision by the previous administration, which ignored science, law and the findings of solid research,” said Becker, sharing confidence the appeal will be withdrawn.

Supervisor Dave Pine has been an outspoken advocate for the salt ponds being restored to marshland. Calling the Trump administration appeal a “waste of time and resources” he said he would be surprised if the EPA moved forward with court proceedings.

Highlighting public sentiments, Pine said community support has shifted away from developing on the salt ponds that sit between restoration efforts to the north and south of the site.

“Ultimately, Cargill needs to change direction and sign away the site to be placed in the public’s hands,” said Pine. “Recent district court opinion affects [future development plans] for Cargill and sends a message that developing that site will be extraordinarily difficult.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106