WINE TRAIN BATTLE BACK TO HIGH COURT The city of St. Helena's legal battle against the Napa Valley Wine Train is marching yet again to the California Supreme Court. Wine Train attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to review the latest pro-city ruling. The dispute centers on whether the Wine Train is a public utility, as defined by the Public Utility Code. If so, it could have eminent domain rights, allowing it to let passengers off the train in St. Helena. The city has for many years expressed concern about the impact those passengers would have on the city and its roads and services. A 1993 environmental impact report failed to settle the issue. The Wine Train's latest appeal is against a decision of the California Public Utilities Commission finding it is not a utility. Sara Steck Myers, the city's attorney for Wine Train matters, said she plans to file a response by April 23, urging the Supreme Court to let the matter rest. Since 1988, the two sides have frequently battled before the utilities commission. They have even swapped positions over the years of litigation; originally, the city sought to have the Wine Train considered a public utility, in hopes the railroad would have to abide by state environmental regulations. After the parties assumed their current positions, the commission ruled in favor of the Wine Train, declaring it a public utility. The city then sought review from the California Court of Appeal, which overturned the commission's decision in June 2004, finding that the Wine Train was not a public utility When the California Supreme Court upheld that decision in September 2004, it appeared the dispute might be settled. But the Wine Train attorneys filed a new petition with the commission, arguing that a separate California Supreme Court decision, involving Disneyland's Indiana Jones ride, set a new legal precedent that would make the Wine Train a public utility. Last May, the utilities commission found that that case had no bearing on the St. Helena-Wine Train dispute. In November, the commission denied the Wine Train's application for a rehearing. The Wine Train attorneys quickly appealed both of the commission's 2006 pro-city decisions to the California Court of Appeal. In March, an appellate panel summarily denied the Wine Train's request to have the matter reheard. On April 2, the Wine Train appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court. The legal issues in the case have taken a number of twists, but the latest argument presented by the Wine Train involves the legal definition of "transportation." Are people being "transported" if they -- like the Wine Train's passengers -- begin in one place, travel to another place without stopping, and then return to their place of origin? The question's philosophical implications notwithstanding, the Wine Train is arguing that the Disneyland case suggests a new interpretation of "transportation" that would encompass the services offered by the Wine Train, thereby making it a public utility. - Jesse Duarte, The Napa Valley Register
