If the Novato lawsuit was just about NIMBYism, then I'd agree
with most of what has been written. It would be a waste of time,
taxpayer dollars, etc.

In fact, the Novato lawsuit is much more, having far more implications for
the NCRA and NWP Co. than many in this blog space have stated.

Thus far, the judge has issued a TRO, pertaining to just one component
of the suit, having to do with the requirements of CEQA applicable
to the track repair project. If the case goes to trial, the one component
could force the NCRA to prepare a state EIR on the track repair
all the way to Eureka. It would come at a huge cost. But, it's not
the only matter before the court.

Novato claims other violations (Brown Act, Public Resource Code) and
additional requirements for CEQA. One of these is the operating lease
agreement between the NCRA and NWP Co. There has been no ruling on
this question at all. However, IF (and it's a big if), the judge
finds that the lease agreement is null and void, this raises real
questions about the freight operators legal standing, because it stems
from that lease agreement (caveat, "as I understand it.") I claim
no expertise on how this affects the STB filings of NWP Co.
How this plays out is potentially quite complicated and a matter for
lawyers involved in the case to study. But if I were John Williams,
I certainly would look to the NCRA to "make me whole." To the extent
the NCRA acted illegally in signing the operating lease agreement, and
John Williams has incurred significant costs as a consequence, he should
have a legal claim for being compensated for his losses. (In essence,
he could claim the NCRA misrepresented the legality of its process in
signing the lease agreement.)

In addition, if the loan agreement between the NCRA and NWP Co. is found
to be null and void, then what happens to all the dollars lent to
the NCRA for the track repair project, that has not been paid back?
This is another matter that is likely to require ajudication, because
what funds does the NCRA have to pay him back? It would have to come
from the state, because the NCRA doesn't have much in the way of independent
revenues.

The point I'm trying to make here is this is not just about nimbyism.
It is a complicated legal matter involving different state
law and federal regulations.

It is undoubtedly one of the reasons the NCRA wants to settle before trial.