What is here:
Feb 14, 2001 "Out of context", "GADFLY"
May 16, 2001 Testimony to California Energy Commission (FPL will dig her well deeper, pay for her power)
Aug 1, 2001 email: Misrepresents SNAGMA and private well charge; Criticizes Rio Linda News; replies
Aug 2, 2001 Reply: Rio Linda News Editorial
Aug 29, 2001 Re: STOP committee
Aug 29, 2001 Testimony to Board of Supervisors
Nov 20, 2001 Testimony to Board of Supervisors

2003 links: Lawsuit filed against Water District by the Moores;

RLNews March 13:  Frivilous lawsuit against Water District; Temporary Restraining Order denied
RLNews March 27:  Water District pay increase hearing dropped; April 18 hearing taken off court calendar
Application for TRO: Do the Moores receive water from the Water District?
April 24, 2003: Moore lawsuit against Water District: District costs top $12,000
June 5, 2003: Editorial - Prolific petitioner Moore - 2 year old signs petition!
June 12, 2003:  Moores lose frivolous lawsuit against Water District
November 13, 2003: Water District lawsuit final; Moores did not appeal

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Out of context
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 3:31 PM PST
From: Jan O'Brien <k6hhd@att.net>
To: Rio Linda <riolinda@vrx.net>

Charlea,

I must commend you for the amount of time you put into attending public meetings and "looking out for the public". I'm sure you like to think of yourself as a watchdog for your neighbors. It is too bad that you always seem to attack the messenger rather than the issue. It gives you the appearance of being a gadfly rather than a watchdog.

I have copied below the FIRST PART of Jay's email from which you have extracted single sentences.

If you extract the single sentences and publish them in a flyer, you will be distributing misinformation. The single sentences, out of context, are not an appropriate quote, but could be found to constitute libelous action on your part. If you quote someone, it is important to place the quote in context so that the author's intent is not changed. What you propose completely turns around the intent of the original message, from which you "quote".

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Publication of public information
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:16 AM PST
From: Charlea Moore <cgamail@juno.com>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay, Thanks for your clarification on the publication of the comments written on this net.  I'm sure that applies to any publication and not just the newspaper?  Correct?  You and the others on this list have no objection to ANY publication of your words???

I'm thinking of sending out a flyer with your quote "The Water District is under no obligation to do anything with the protest letters".  I think your constituants would be interested in your view of their protests.

I'm also sure that the protest committee members would be interested in the community's reaction to your assertion that "all the committee members have been "alone" with the protest letters".

Charlea

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Response to Charlea Moore's accusations
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:13 AM PST
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Rio Linda Elverta Mailing list:

I really should not reply to this, as it is patently disrespectful, misinformed and argumentative. However, I cannot allow these allegations and accusations to go unanswered.

The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District is under no obligation to do anything with the protests. I volunteered to involve the public, and the Board assigned me the task I proposed. Everything anyone on the committee, including me, has done to sort or analyze the protests is known, public, and subject to verification, recount and review.

The protest letters were individually and uniquely identified at the February 5 Special Board meeting so that any counts could be verified by audit if necessary. All committee members have been "alone" with at least a part of the protests; others present were deeply involved in their specific task and would not notice another member adding to or subtracting from the protests. That is exactly why the protests are marked as they are, to guarantee their security and with the intent to remove all of the committee members from suspicion of fraudulent action.

My responses to Charlea's accusations are included below.

Jay O'Brien

I'm glad that you enjoyed the cookies I sent to the committee meeting. :)

Jan O'Brien
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
 

The following message was posted in response by Charlea Moore. This is the "cheerful, loudmouth, know-it-all" letter. To place it in context, click here.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Out of context
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 5:41 PM PST
From: cgamail@juno.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Hi Jan, I actually think of myself as having fun and I've never thought of myself as looking out for the "public" so much as trying to keep things open and honest.  The public can take it or leave it, makes no difference to me.  Also, believe it or not - members of the public actually asked me to get involved, although you are probably right and they are sorry now.  And just for the record I do not flatter myself by thinking I'm anything other than a cheerful, loudmouth, know-it-all, who ocassionally manages to get something done.

Regarding your comments about "context" I couldn't agree more.  That was my point about what Don published.  He published my answer to Darrell and then published Mike's answer to my answer.  That's as out of context as you can get.  The least he could have done was publish the very good suggestions by Darrell that I was responding to so that my response would have been in "context".

Do you not object to ALL out of context quotes or just certain out of context quotes?

As far as attacking the messenger, the members of the Water Board have been crying "It's not our fault" since this whole thing began.  Not once has anyone at any meeting or on this net implied directly or indirectly that this board is at fault for past board action.  No messenger has been attacked.

If board members choose to contact each other in violation of the Brown Act and that is made public I would consider that "news" rather than an attack.

If the Protest Committee Chair chooses to handle the protest letters all by himself with no one present - I think that's "news" also.

Maybe I should become a reporter.

As far as libel goes I like that old saying "It ain't libel if it's true".  And no matter how you read it, Jay's intent was to say that ALL the committee members have been "alone" with the letters. And his intent was to say - "The Water District has no obligation to do anything with the protest letters."  There is nothing in his context to indicate otherwise.

And last, your cookies were very good and thank you for making them for the committee members. Oatmeal raisin is my favorite.  :-))

Charlea
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

In attendance for the CEC were Presiding Commissioner Arthur H. Rosenfeld and Associate Commissioner Michael C. Moore.

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR   )
THE FPL ENERGY SACRAMENTO POWER,    ) DOCKET NO. 01-AFC-1
LLC RIO LINDA/ELVERTA POWER PROJECT )
(RIO LINDA)                         )
____________________________________)

JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 10063
CONTRACT NO: 170-99-001
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345

---

Extract from pages 72-76 of the 85 page transcript:

(Note that the lights were out at when the testimony below started; the lights went out on page 49 of the transcript.)

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Charlea Moore.

MS. MOORE. My name is Charlea Moore, C-h-a-r-l-e-a, and I live in Elverta. My house is approximately two and a half miles, as the crow flies, northeast of the location. And from my front porch, I can see the red lights on the towers that are currently on the property, even though it's two and a half miles. I'm here tonight, I would like to say that I don't oppose the power plant. I think that the power plant is needed. I believe that the power plant can provide benefits to our community. I don't think the power plant is necessarily a bad thing to our community. I do feel that there are some issues that I am concerned with, and I know there are other people in the community who are concerned with those issues. One of my issues, I have been in this community for a number of years lobbying on behalf of equestrians and trail enthusiasts. And my concern is that the plant -- I always thought I had a good voice for this.

(Thereupon the lights and power went on.)

MS. MOORE: I didn't think I needed that. I have been in the community for a number of years lobbying on behalf of equestrian enthusiasts for trails. Back in the early, early eighties, a trails master plan was done in the county. And the Rio Linda portion of that included a conceptual trail, because, at that time, there was nothing there that would go across this power plant from U Street and over to connect to what is now the Steelhead Creek, which runs through the westside of this plant. The Steelhead Creek further south from Elkhorn on down to Discovery Park has already developed a trail. My concern is that while everybody's concern about mitigating on the residential and visual side where people will see it, people riding along the trail system that we hope will some day exist out there also need to have mitigation. They need to be able to ride along there and it's not a really neat experience to be trotting along on our horse and see stacks, and gray walls and that sort of thing. So we would like to see, I would hope, and I'm sure that they will do that, some kind of mitigation along there. I would like to see it for as long as the power plant is in sight from that system, so that you can't look back or look forward and see the site from the trail system along the Steelhead Creek.

The other thing that I'm really concerned with, and this is something I don't know quite how to address, I understand, and I talked with some of the FPL folks, they put the sign up there that said there are no health impacts.I understand that from the Commission's point of view the emissions are mitigated in that the overall quality of the air will be better. Nonetheless, the emissions in this community will be worse. We will have emissions in this community. Those emissions aren't going to some other place in the county, they're here. Some other places in the county will have less in the region to make up for that.

I feel that this community deserves some kind of compensation for that, because we will have to bear those emissions. There's nothing that can be done about that. I understand that. I just want to see some kind of compensation for this community, because it's our children and our grandchildren that are going to live here and they're going to have to deal with that. I understand it's very low. I understand that you guys have the cleanest most wonderful technology in the world, but nonetheless there are emissions and they will stay in this community.

And my last issue is the water. My issue isn't so much the water that you folks will be using as the water that I'm going to be using. I have a well. I just had somebody in to replace the entire well from my tank all the way down, because everything wore out at once. At that time, I had my well sounded, this has been about two weeks ago. I have water at 90 feet. My pump is sitting at 140 feet. The bottom of my well is 160. At a decline of about two feet a year, which is what we have been experiencing for at least the last 20 years, I should have a 20-year well there. If you folks are going to draw water out of this aquifer enough to continue to lower -- to accelerate the rate of that water table drop, then my well will potentially go dry much sooner than 20 years.

So you've already said that you're going to mitigate for that by drilling my well deeper and making up for the cost of me lifting that extra water and that's fine.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Again, while it's on my mind, I would encourage both staff and applicant to discuss to expanding their discussions, if you will, to any of the water experts currently looking at the McClellan Air Force Base possible contamination. I would encourage the parties to make sure that the folks over at McClellan overlooking that issue are involved in your discussions and analyses with respect to the project.

MS. MOORE: That is another issue in the community is the plume moving towards our community.

Hello to all,

On the subject of news articles that our local editor chooses to publish - I thought it very interesting that Don's "this and that" column had a quote from SNAGMA regarding the metering of private wells.  The quote indicated correctly that any private well used to irrigate less than 2 1/2 acres would not be "taxed" for pumping.

What the quote didn't say was that any private well used to irrigate over 2 1/2 acres would be "metered" and there will be a charge for pumping - not a tax.

I have a five acre parcel and a private well and septic system.  I has over 1,000 feet of drip lines and a large front and back yard as well as horse pastures front and back.

Am I "irrigating" more than 2 1/2 acres?  I don't know but I do know that SNAGMA and our current water board has concured with the "metering" of private wells irrigating over 2 1/2 acres and I'm betting that includes me.

I wish that the Rio Linda News would print both sides of issues currently facing our communities and I wish that the Rio Linda News would print "all" the facts not just the ones that support the News' position.

Charlea
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] New articles
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:53 AM PDT
From: Mike Phelan <mphelan@bignet.net>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay -

Charlea's  message (above) is exactly why I think maintaining this list is a mistake.

What Charlea says is absolute fiction, but I have no idea how you are going to undo the impression her message leaves. That the District spent a number of years of  political effort plus money on a lawsuit against the County opposing the formation of SNAGMA, a fact that at one time Charlea knew, is totally disregarded. That "our" Supervisor provided no assistance when it was very clear that the only area that might be impacted was in his District is not mentioned by her.  The 2 1/2 acre exemption exists only because of the District's fight. The fact is that SNAGMA is an agency of the County (and the cities).  Anyone who has a problem with what SNAGMA is should contact Roger, not the District.

This "gadfly" approach of hers is weird.

Mike Phelan
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] New articles
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2001 10:43 PM PDT
From: RQuack4131@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

I also agree this list is a valuable tool for our community.  But Mike is right about Charlea's comments.  Some of you believe that each side has some truth.  This is not always the case.  Some people are totally wrong.  Some charges they make are  groundless and malicious.  Many of us don't have the time to research and have a difficult time knowing what is true and who to support.

Mike Phelan is one of the smartest and finest public servants I have ever met.  I worked with him closely on water and flood control issues to protect our community against those Charlea supports.  I am so sorry to see you retire, Mike.   I do miss you.

Aloha,
Chris Q
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] New articles
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 9:55 AM PDT
From: cgamail@juno.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Hi Mike - I'm sure sorry you feel that this list is a mistake because of my comments on metering of private wells.

Since the Rio Linda News already censors communication in this community it would be a real shame to censor this list also.

Just to set the record straight - I did not say that the Water District was repsonsible for the formation of SNAGMA - I said the Water Board concurred with the metering of private wells irrigating over 2 1/2 acres.

Is that not true?

Sincerely,
Charlea
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] New articles
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 1:00 PM PDT
From: Mike Phelan <mphelan@bignet.net>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Well, I guess Jay's list got a ringing endorsement. So I'll concede that communicating is important to the community. I guess I'll accept the fiction that appears here as I have to accept the fiction that appears in the other media. The problem is that once people become upset because of the fiction, it is nearly impossible to gain acceptance of the correct information.

No Charlea, it isn't true.  At no time has the District Board ever concurred with the metering of private wells. We fought to prevent the formation of SNAGMA and the concession made to us by the County and other representatives was the 2 1/2 acre exemption.  In fact, the District participates in SNAGMA because it has no choice (the County and cities agreement mandates coverage of our area and appointment by the Board of Supervisors of one of our Board members to the SNAGMA Board). It is the only game in town to try to influence groundwater policy affecting our community.

When and if SNAGMA ever does consider a charge on private pumping, RLECWD and Natomas Mutual have repeatedly indicated that they would vigorously oppose it.

I agree with Jeff.  It has been extremely difficult to be effective dealing with the world outside Rio Linda and Elverta when it is clearly evident that people are fighting within the community over the issue. Those fights become too personal too fast and it is the personal attack that permit the outside to ignore whichever party it wishes, the attacker or the target. The community needs to find a way to keep the "fisticuffs" private and achieve a single voice on important confrontations with the outside world.

Chris, thank you for your kind words.  Unfortunately (from a personal view), I'm not yet fully retired. Because I feel a commitment to the community and local government, I'll continue on a limited basis until no longer needed.

Mike

[Editorial, 8/2/01 Rio Linda Elverta News]

Hello to all,

On the subject of news articles that our local editor chooses to publish- I thought it very interesting that Don's "this--and that" column had a quote from SNAGMA regarding the metering of private wells. The quote indicated correctly that any private well used to irrigate less than 2 1/2 acres would not be "taxed" for pumping. What the quote didn't say was that any private well used to irrigate over 2 1/2 acres would be "metered" and there will be a charge for pumping - not a tax. I have a five acre parcel and a private well and septic system. I has over 1,000 feet of drip lines and a large front and back yard as well as horse pastures front and back. Am I "irrigating" more than 2 1/2 acres? I don't know but I do know that SNAGMA and our current water board has concured with the "metering" of private wells irrigating over 2 1/2 acres and I'm betting that includes me.

I wish that the Rio Linda News would print both sides of issues currently facing our communities and I wish that the Rio Linda News would print "all" the facts not just the ones that support the News' position.

Charlea

I think you owe the present Water Board Directors an apology when you accuse them of concurring with SNAGMA on the issue of metering private wells.

Our water district fought against the SNAGMA plan and its formation which incidentally is an agency of the County and the Cities. It was only through the efforts of the Rio Linda Water District that the 2 1/2 acre exemption was implemented. If you have a problem about SNAGMA don't blame it on our water district. You should contact your Supervisor Roger Dickinson.

Both sides of this issue were presented by The NEWS, but both sides are not presented in your message.

While on the subject of water, community meetings revealed that community members agreed that the district needed to increase the water rates. So they did and then they were accused of being the "bad guys" and some people were all upset because they raised the rates. Then, because of all the allegations and defamation and attacks on their character, the increase was delayed. Then, once again they became the villains because they delayed the increase. Pretty confusing to me. It's the damned if you do, and damned if you don't scenario. Then we have a citizen's rate committee who are studying different rate structures. Sounds good to me, except that one of the committee members is a leader of the effort to recall 3 board members. Now how do you expect them to cooperate with the "enemy". Then on top of that, the "rumor" is that the person heading the recall wants to run for the board. Of course I don't print "rumors" so I'll have to wait to hear it as they say, "from the horses mouth".

Darn, I almost forgot to mention that newspapers don't print all letters they receive, particularly slanderous libelous ones. Also, I want to be fair to those that assassinate my character and give them credit for calling The NEWS, "our local newspaper" and calling the editor our local editor".

Well anyway, once again it's time to get to press, so, it's 30 for me and 73 to you.

This message was posted, for information, on the Rio Linda Elverta email list:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Sac Bee: Power plant plans ripped
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:21 AM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
Reply-To: riolinda@vrx.net
To:Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
      Stop The Oppressive Powerplant <stop@vrx.net>

Power plant plans ripped: Rio Linda-Elverta residents charge it would benefit more affluent areas while hurting their own.

"...The FPL proposal has hit a raw nerve in Rio Linda and Elverta, where many residents feel ignored by local government and mistrust development. More than 200 people packed two recent meetings where speakers overwhelmingly opposed the project..."

By Robert D. Dávila
Bee Staff Writer
(Published Aug. 29, 2001)

http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local08_20010829.html

Note: References to news media articles are provided for information and reference purposes only and do not indicate support or endorsement by either the poster of this message or by any of the participants in this mailing list.

This message was then posted by Jeff Culley, including the above message:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] STOP - Our Mission Statement
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:19 AM PDT
From: "Jeff Culley" <jeffculley@home.com>
Reply-To: riolinda@vrx.net
To: <riolinda@vrx.net>

STOP is a group committee of people within our community that have been working very hard to make sure our community has a voice.

STOP Mission Statement -

The citizens of Rio Linda and Elverta value the quality of life in our community.  The STOP committee is committed to safeguarding that quality of life and representing the community's opposition to the Florida Power and Light plant as proposed.

If you feel the same way we do and would like to help us safeguard our quality of life and oppose the FPL plant as it is proposed, you can call or email us for more information.

The Power Plant is Not a Done Deal !

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair
STOP

Contacts:

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair
STOP
jeffculley@home.com
Phone - 991-9074

John Sassaman, Co-Chair
STOP
yersinia@mac.com
Phone - 991-7097

This message was posted by Charlea Moore, including the above message:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] STOP - Our Mission Statement
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:17 PM PDT
From: cgamail@juno.com
Reply-To: riolinda@vrx.net
To: riolinda@vrx.net, stop@vrx.net

Hello Jeff or John,

Would you please respond to my previous emails - I've been requesting information on the next meeting date and location of STOP?

Have I been removed from the STOP Committee while I was gone?

Are the STOP meetings public or private?  Can I come?

Is this list still going to STOP members?

Please answer.

Charlea

Hi, my name’s Charlea Moore, and I’m a Elverta resident, I live at 8840 El Verano Avenue in Elverta. I’m here tonight to speak in favor of the project, in favor of your Board finding the zoning consistent with or the application for the project consistent with the current zoning. I want to say that this is kind of a nostalgic thing because I grew up in Florida; I rode a brown and white pony through the palmettos and the swamps across Florida Power and Light property. And that was our favorite destination because it was a big open area where we could ride and it was a safe place to ride. And so when I heard that this power plant was coming here, and in a previous iteration, the SEPCO plant, I had requested trails, I thought this is going to be really neat. I’ve moved all the way across the country, I’m fifty years older, and I’m going to get to ride a horse across Florida Power and Light land again. I thought that was kind of a neat thing. I will say that I feel that the zoning that is there has been IR for many many years. The people who live there knew it was IR when they moved there. People who have lived there for years and years and years know that sooner or later something would be built there, I feel that what is going to be built there possibly, if it’s approved, is maybe preferable to something that could be a lot worse in the future, that land is not suitable and has never been suitable under any designation for anything but industrial, because of that I feel that this might be one of the best possible projects we could get for that area, I personally would like to see it go ahead and happen. I would be able to see the lights from the tower from my front porch because I can currently see that tall structure you were pointing to, Illa, that I can see from my front porch even though I live about two and a half miles away to the north west, ah towards the north east. I believe the CEC will do their job and make sure that this project is mitigated correctly for all the community concerns. I believe Florida Power and Light when they tell me that if my well goes dry they will re-drill it for me (audience laughter) I’m sorry, I believe them, I think they will re-drill my well. I think they will re-drill everybody’s well that goes dry (audience laughter). They have said they will and I have no reason to believe they won’t. I believe that

Board Chair Niello interrupts: If you could come to a conclusion, your time…

I’m sorry, I will. I believe that this project is a good project. I think ultimately for the community it might provide a tax base. One of the things that our community lacks and has always wanted is incorporation. We can’t incorporate because we don’t have a tax base. This would be the start of a tax base for our community and I think it might open the floodgates for more businesses that would provide a tax base. Thank you.

(Wearing Florida Power and Light T Shirt) Charlea Moore:

Good evening and thank you for allowing the public to have a chance to comment tonight. My name’s Charlea Moore, and I live in Elverta. As you’re aware, there was a previous project, SEPCO, approved as M2 because it involved manufacture of methane as part of that project; I really thought Bob McKenzie’s earlier comment about the chickens producing methane that didn’t harm us and that goes for cows and I might add, from personal experience, horses also. The project that would have been created was a much larger impact for noise pollution and toxic chemicals on our community then the project that is proposed now. SMUD chose to build a cogeneration plant at the Campbell soup company instead of in Rio Linda, and this area was left as IR with the M2 zoning. California needs power plants and this site has been slated for industrial reserve for over fifty years. The Board of Supervisors did approve a cogeneration plant on this site, and it is difficult for me to understand why this plant would be considered inconsistent with either the M2 or the IR zoning when the previous plant was considered consistent. The FPL proposal would offer much needed megawatts to the grid, with less pollution noise and traffic than the previous SEPCO proposal. The area is surrounded by other industrial uses including the fertilizer plant to the south, the gunite plant to the east, the major WAPA, which is Western Area Power Authority grid station to the north, and railroad tracks on the west. The land is not ever going to be anything other than industrial, and I fear the next project proposed for this area will be worse for the community impacts than this one. Therefore I’m asking that you approve the zoning consistency for the FPL parcel and allow the CEC to continue it’s hearing process for this plant. A group in the community has been distributing flyers, and I found out who it was (laugh) a little while ago, a -  a  - uh - a group in this community has been distributing flyers indicating the approval of the zoning consistency for this project would end life as you know it, water will be  poisoned, pollution will suffocate the communities. I feel these types of scare tactics have caused many people to appear here today who are opposing the plant out of fear, rather than out of reason and knowledge.

Chairman Niello: Are you close to your conclusion?

Moore: I’m almost. One paragraph. Thank you.

I’m speaking for those who have looked at the facts regarding the project and they support it because Rio Linda and Elverta need a tax base, because California needs energy, and because we would like to have electricity in 2004 to light our Christmas trees. And just one last thing. Debbie mentioned a number of things that should not be included as part of the community benefit package and I would like to add to that list that the 12 million dollars to the Rio Linda Water district should not be part of the community benefit package. Thank you.

Supervisor Johnson: What should not?

Moore: Should not. There’s a proposal to give the Water district payments that amount to 12 million dollars.