The North Coast Rail Authority must pay just under $2 million in attorney fees to two Humboldt County-based environmental groups that for the past seven years have sued the agency, successfully, over its alleged environmental harms posed to different regions in Northern California, a superior court judge ruled in late December.

The two groups — Friends of the Eel River and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics — successfully sued the NCRA in the past for claiming it didn’t have to follow state environmental policies. The groups allege the agency has caused environmental harm to areas like the Eel River watershed.

The nearly $2 million bill will add to existing debt staring down the NCRA, which is still reeling from a bill authored by state Sen. Mike McGuire mandating the agency shift its focus to the construction of a 300-mile North Coast trail.

“The NCRA keeps losing and the taxpayers keep paying,” McGuire said. “It needs to focus on shutting its functionally bankrupt agency down and move the Great Redwood Trail forward.”

NCRA executive director Mitch Stogner declined to comment on the lawsuits or the agency’s next move, saying he will need to first confer with the NCRA Board of Directors at its Wednesday meeting.

Accusations of environmental harm stem from the NCRA’s out-of-commission North Coast rail line allegedly causing damage to the Eel River’s fish passages, as well as for the railroad’s cut and grade allegedly eroding the surrounding land.

“In trying to revive rail service, (the NCRA) adamantly refused to comply with California environmental law or clean up the pollution or fish passage problems in the Eel River canyon,” said Stephanie Tidwell, executive director of Friends of the Eel River.

After developing its own environmental impact report, Tidwell said, the NCRA abandoned its research and claimed it didn’t have to comply with California laws, instead claiming it answers only to federal environmental policy. The two local groups then filed a lawsuit, which traveled to and from the superior court and the state Supreme Court over the course of several years.

A judge in 2017 upheld that the NCRA could not use federal laws as a pre-emptive measure against state environmental quality rules. The latest ruling, handed down Dec. 21, orders the agency to pay out the attorney fees. Still, the groups don’t believe the full cost was realized.

“It looks like a lot of money that we got back,” said Patty Clary of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. “But it’s only part of the money and covers half or less of all the legal efforts that went out on this case.”

Now, the agency is under orders to wrap up outstanding business by June, when it will need to hone in on trails, not rail.

“What we don’t have yet is a full picture of what comes next in terms of the agency’s planning and design of trail segments,” said Scott Greacen, conservation director of Friends of the Eel River.

At Tuesday’s county Board of Supervisors meeting, 2nd District Supervisor Estelle Fennell was assigned once again to represent the board to the NCRA.

The NCRA’s own Board of Directors will meet Wednesday, when it plans to discuss the two lawsuits in closed session. Representatives from both local groups will speak at public comment.

Shomik Mukherjee can be reached at 707-441-0504.