Watson’s Testimony May Turn the Tide in Back Bay Case

For the last month, there has been a stream of scientists, historians and legal specialists beating a path to a Santa Ana courtroom to offer learned opinions on Upper Newport Bay.

How the bay was formed and who has owned it are the key questions in a lawsuit by environmentalists who claim that the Irvine Co. never held title to land it sold for $3.4 million to the state in 1975 to create the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.

The trial, before Orange County Superior Court Judge Judith M. Ryan, is expected to end today. So far, the experts have sparred over everything from ancient mapping techniques to the best modern methods of dating soil samples.

Much of the monthlong trial has been devoted to evidence about how and when three islands in the Back Bay were formed. Disagreement over the character of the bay goes back well over 100 years, when the first legal disputes over ownership in the area began.

But the star witness so far may have been a man with no law degree, no scientific training and no special expertise in the arcane disciplines that have dominated the trial.

He is Raymond L. Watson, past president and current director and executive committee member of the Irvine Co.

His testimony presents a glimpse of the deepening frustration felt by Orange County’s largest landowner as public support turned to overwhelming opposition to plans for turning the bay into a pleasure harbor much like the lower bay is today.

The plaintiffs, Frank and Frances Robinson, backed by the Sierra Club, must prove that the Back Bay was made up of tidelands when California was admitted to the Union in 1850. Tidelands, said to be held in trust for the public, may not legally be sold into private hands.

But the Robinsons also must prove that the Irvine Co. knew the bay already was state property when it was sold to the state in 1975.

It was Watson, then president of the Irvine Co., who signed the deal under which the land was sold in 1975. A battery of legal opinions--from the firm’s lawyers, from a title insurance company and from lawyers for the state--confirmed the Irvine Co.’s ownership before he signed, Watson testified.

“The truth in their mind, and therefore in my mind, (was that) it was the Irvine Co. who owned those islands, and all the property that we were conveying to the state,” Watson testified.

The movement to preserve the Back Bay from development took the Irvine Co. by surprise, he said.

“I mean it started early on in 1960,” Watson testified. “The company, everybody, was joyously going down the trail of developing a piece of property for a harbor (that) everybody agreed with. And that progressively deteriorated (to) a point where there was a great deal of opposition to what we or the county or anybody was doing. . . .”

Both the company and the state claimed title to different Back Bay lands. Whatever the objective--preservation or development--one side had to give way.

Watson testified that the islands had been appraised at $8 million. He said he knew he faced a tough time when he recommended the sale at a lower price to the Irvine Co.’s board of directors.

“I had to explain why it is we were now going to be agreeing to sell the property for $3.5 million, approximately $3.5 million, when we had in hand an appraisal for $8 million,” Watson said.

Watson’s advice: It was worth the price to lay the controversy to rest.

Questioned by Phillip S. Berry, past president and now general counsel of the Sierra Club, Watson acknowledged that the final legal opinion he received before signing the papers for the sale was not in writing.

Pressed by Berry, Watson made it clear that he acted on the advice of experts in closing the deal.

“I didn’t sit here like a judge and say, now let’s go through this trial like we are doing here--site reports, charts 100 years old, analyze this issue and that issue,” Watson testified. “I was asking them, ‘Look at it professionally. I am relying upon your opinion.’ ”

It is one of those expert opinions, by an Irvine Co. employee, that Berry has made a cornerstone of the first part of his case.

Harris E. Coutchie, a senior surveyor for the Irvine Co., studied past maps and land surveys in 1971 at the direction of a former president of the company.

His report concluded that an 1889 land survey on which the firm based its claim of ownership misrepresented the character of the Back Bay. Coutchie concluded that tidelands had in fact been erroneously included in the map as privately held lands.

Called as a witness, Coutchie testified that the land issue “died” before he completed the report. The report remained in his desk at the Irvine Co. and he did not give it to anyone else at the firm before Watson signed the 1975 agreement, Coutchie testified.

In his study, Coutchie concluded that a line drawn around the islands on the 1889 map was not the high-tide line, as had been assumed.

The area outside an accurate high-tide line would be state-owned tidelands. Inside the line would be private lands.

In fact, the line drawn around the islands on the 1889 map was a low-water mark, Berry contends, and, he argues, is strong evidence not only that the islands were tidelands in their entirety but that the Irvine Co. knew its ownership claims were groundless.

When questioned by Irvine Co. lawyer Gregory P. Lindstrom, Coutchie testified that he never doubted that the firm had good title to the islands. The report established accurate acreage for the three islands and in Coutchie’s mind never suggested that they were tidelands, he testified.

During the last four weeks, plaintiff Frances Robinson has attended the trial daily.

When it comes to the Irvine Co. and Upper Newport Bay, Frances and her husband, Frank, are old foes of the developers.

The Robinsons questioned the original harbor plan and worked for years to stop it. Their first lawsuit slammed the door on development after an appellate court decided that state tidelands could not be surrendered to private interests.

Watson, who said he jogs in the Back Bay regularly, mentioned the Robinsons repeatedly during his testimony.

One of the main reasons for making the 1975 deal with the state was the threat of more litigation, Watson said. The Irvine Co. wanted to end the controversy, once and for all.

“The idea was to wrap up everything,” Watson testified.

“I wanted to shake Mr. Robinson’s hand for allowing me to jog in the Back Bay and leave me alone. That is really all I wanted to do.”