As part of its fantastic coverage of the Great Park, Sean Emery of The OC Register posted Thursday Great Park tries to keep contamination info under wrap. Sean raised the concern that the Great Park Corporation is using expensive attorneys to manage the environmental impact review (EIR) so that sticky details of the toxic wasted management effort could be hidden behind "attorney-client" privilege.

As it happens, I know a consultant who specializes in the preparation of EIRs and their federal equivalents, EAs and EISs. That consultant, who has no ties to the Great Park project, thought that Sean was basically correct: The Great Park Corporation is probably hiring expensive attorneys instead of much less expensive environmental consultants to control the flow of information. However, the consultant believes that hiring attorneys instead of EIR consultants directly is reasonable and customary for a project as large and complicated as the Great Park.

The full answer is interesting, so I share it below.

The Great Park project requires extensive CEQA/NEPA documentation because of the multiple federal and local jurisdictions, so seating project management and contract administration in a law firm simplifies matters for both the Great Park Corporation and the responsible jurisdictions.

Lawyers are, in essence, just highly paid writers, so it isn't odd that they would prepare, or oversee the preparation of, this documentation. It's just a VERY expensive way to do it. For a good land use law practice, a junior associate bills out at up to $300/hr and partners can bill out at $700/hr or more. EIR consultant fees are more like $100-$200/hr. Hazmat issues are large, complicated, and have nearly unlimited potential for litigation, so law firms are certain to be involved in some capacity from the beginning, in any event. Should a history of illegal toxic dumping emerge, for example, there are deep pockets with much at stake involved (i.e., the federal government). From the Great Park Corporation’s point of view, taking steps now to shield the proposed park project with attorneys may prove to be prudent.

A lot of the value provided by land use attorneys is in ensuring the volume of potentially problematic documents and communications are kept to a minimum in the first place. This cuts down on the size of the project’s administrative record, which becomes a matter of public record and could become the subject of subsequent litigation. That administrative record is likely the reason this project will be managed by attorneys from beginning to end. Attorneys can oversee and influence that record from the get-go to ensure environmental documentation has the best chance of withstanding future legal challenges. Given the size of this project and its tangled environmental history, one has to assume those future challenges are likely.

So yes,  the Agranistas are again finding the expensive, secretive way to proceed, but at least in this case it may actually make sense.

Update: I had forgotten that the Great Park paid $11.7 million to buy $100 million of "environmental risk" insurance from... AIG.   *Somebody* at the Great Park is worried that there are more toxic waste issues lurking out there.