U.S. May Bar O.C. Disposal of Seized Ranch

SANTA ANA —  The federal government has threatened to block Orange County’s proposed sale next week of a 213-acre South County ranch seized in a 1985 drug raid, saying the county hasn’t lived up to its agreement on use of the land.

If the federal government makes good on its threat, it could derail hopes by county officials to sell Rancho del Rio on the open market.

One of the prospective bidders is expected to be the county Harbors, Beaches and Parks Service Area. The agency wants to create a park in the secluded foothills near the Cleveland National Forest.

But U.S. Atty. Lourdes G. Baird warned in a sharply worded letter dated May 28 and obtained by The Times on Monday that the proposed sale of the property would violate an agreement made in 1987. While that agreement allows the county to sell the land under certain conditions, it states that as long as a county agency maintains ownership, the ranch must be used for a drug enforcement training center.

Today, the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on a resolution that county officials hope will answer the federal government’s objections. That resolution pledges that the sale of the land would be subject to approval by the federal government.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, however, has not officially communicated to the county whether it would accept the resolution and allow the sale to proceed, county officials said.

In her letter, Baird set out the position of the federal government and included strong language criticizing the proposed sale.

“Should the county proceed with its plans for the sale of the Rancho del Rio property, we are authorized to take all necessary legal actions to prevent such sale until a judicial determination on the contract can be obtained,” Baird said. “If necessary, we are prepared to file a federal lawsuit forthwith.”

The letter was accompanied by a draft copy of a complaint against the county charging it with breach of contract and other issues. The complaint asks a judge to return the land to the federal government and slap the county with a fine “in an amount appropriate to punish (the county) for its wrongful conduct and set an example for others.”

At issue are the county’s plans for the 213-acre ranch, which was once home to an international marijuana smuggling operation. Investigators seized the land in 1985, and it was turned over to the county two years later as part of a federal program that allows local law enforcement agencies to share assets taken in drug raids.

The U.S. attorney’s office maintains that the county agreed in a 1987 contract that the land would only be used for a drug-enforcement training center, a proposal touted by Sheriff Brad Gates and applauded by President George Bush.

But county officials, who are struggling to close a $65-million budget shortfall, argue that they cannot afford to develop such a center. They have instead proposed selling the property and using the money to pay for law enforcement services.

“The federal government cannot force us to build a drug training center that we can’t afford,” said Ronald S. Rubino, associate administrative officer for management and budget. “County counsel has met with representatives of the U.S. attorney’s office, and we think that meeting went very well. We think they understand our position.”

Assistant U.S. Atty. Peter Hsiao said it was “the policy of the U.S. attorney’s office not to comment on matters that are the subject of pending negotiations.”

Baird was unavailable for comment Monday. However, in her May 28 letter, she wrote:

“After consulting with the Department of Justice regarding the conditions of the county’s proposed sale, this office has concluded that this proposed sale . . . would be a violation of our contract.

”. . . Based upon the facts known to us, the county has breached this contract by not seeking all such legal approvals, and by its unilateral decision to sell the property without adequate consultation with the Department of Justice.”

Despite the sharply worded letter, county officials said Monday that they believe that the differences between the local government and federal authorities will be ironed out today, when the Board of Supervisors votes on a resolution regarding the sale of the ranch.

That resolution is intended to reassure the U.S. attorney’s office that the sale of the property would be legal and would not violate the county’s agreement with the federal government.

The resolution clarifies earlier actions by the board and specifically gives the federal government the right to approve the sale price for the ranch. It also states that the money from the sale will not be spent until the federal government has given its approval.

“The resolution is the result of discussions that have occurred,” said Gaddi H. Vasquez, chairman of the Board of Supervisors. “I’m confident that we’re making progress.”

During a visit to Washington last year, Vasquez met with top officials in the U.S. Department of Justice and was assured that the county could use drug forfeiture assets for a variety of law enforcement purposes.

BACKGROUND

Narcotics investigators swooped down on the Rancho del Rio on March 1, 1985, closing down an international drug-smuggling operation headed by Daniel James Fowlie. The ranch was seized according to federal forfeiture laws and was turned over to Orange County in 1987. Sheriff Brad Gates had hoped to turn it into a drug-enforcement training center, but county officials say the county cannot afford to operate such a facility. Last December, the board voted to put the property up for sale. Bids are scheduled to be submitted June 26.