County, Lancaster Sue State in Effort to Halt Prison Plans : Corrections: Residents fear the facility would burden water, courts and other services. Gov. Deukmejian counters that Los Angeles County has no prison but contributes 40% of the prison population.

The city of Lancaster and Los Angeles County filed lawsuits Monday to block construction of a state prison in Lancaster, arguing that the state had not conducted an adequate environmental review and that the legislation involved is unconstitutional.

The city’s suit was filed in Lancaster Superior Court. It alleges that state Department of Corrections Director James Rowland and other officials violated state environmental laws by failing to examine the prison’s full social, economic and environmental impact.

State officials did not sufficiently consult with city leaders opposed to the project and failed to consider alternative sites in the Antelope Valley because they were biased in favor of approving the site in west Lancaster, the suit says.

“The environmental impact review was nothing more than a document designed to justify a decision that had already been made,” said Lancaster City Attorney David McEwen, who drafted the suit. It requests an immediate halt to planning for the 2,200-bed, maximum- and medium-security prison. Construction is to begin this summer.

In a separate suit filed in Los Angeles on behalf of the county and Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents the Lancaster area, county lawyers argue that the environmental review did not consider that the prison will prevent the county from expanding adjacent health and law enforcement facilities needed in the fast-growing valley. The prison site is owned by the county.

“I think the whole purpose of the suit is to persuade the state, either through logic and common sense or through pressing the suit itself, to change its mind,” said Antonovich spokesman Dawson Oppenheimer. He said Antonovich favors construction of the prison on state-owned land in Hungry Valley, near Gorman.

Department of Corrections officials declined to comment on the lawsuits because they had not seen them. But department spokesman Mike Van Winkle defended the environmental review, which took two years to complete. “We stand behind it and we feel it is an outstanding document,” he said.

Last week, Gov. George Deukmejian criticized county supervisors for their decision to sue. He said Los Angeles County has a responsibility to provide prison space because nearly 40% of state prison inmates come from the county, which has no prisons. He accused prison opponents of endangering the stability of the overcrowded state penal system with frivolous legal action.

Both suits say state officials failed to respond to widespread community opposition in Lancaster, where some residents fear that a prison would hurt the economy and burden government services, especially the court system. They contend it would strain the water supply and other infrastructure.

The suits also attack Senate Bill 18, the 1987 “pain-for-pain” compromise in which legislators agreed to permit a prison in heavily Democratic East Los Angeles sought by Gov. Deukmejian if another prison is built in the heavily Republican Antelope Valley. Earlier this month, the city of Los Angeles joined community activists in suing to stop the East Los Angeles prison.

By authorizing two prisons on two sites paid for through separate appropriations, the suits say, Senate Bill 18 violates a state constitutional requirement that legislation be limited to a single subject.

In addition, the county suit maintains that corrections officials arbitrarily and unreasonably denied Lancaster residents due process. The state gave critics of the East Los Angeles site preferential treatment over the Lancaster site by establishing tougher standards for approval of the East Los Angeles site, including creation of an independent review panel, the county suit claims.

Until the suit over the East Los Angeles site is resolved, the Lancaster project should be suspended, the suit argues. To continue could be a waste of money, it says, because the legislation prohibits operation of either prison until the other is under construction.

“My position is that that in itself is a flaw in the bill because it sets up a tremendous potential waste of taxpayer funds,” said Helen Parker, senior deputy county counsel.

The legislation calls for expedited hearing of any legal challenges to the environmental review, lawyers said. A hearing date for the lawsuit and accompanying request for an injunction must be requested within the next 45 days.