Rulings handed down in two lawsuits affecting Paso Robles groundwater basin

Two separate Superior Courts on Friday handed down rulings both for and against efforts by the county to manage the Paso Robles groundwater basin.

In one ruling, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Martin Tangeman tentatively denied a request by a group of property owners in the basin to invalidate the county’s two-year emergency ordinance, which forbids new pumping from the basin unless it is offset by an equal amount of conservation.

In the other ruling, Santa Clara County Superior Court denied a request by the City of Paso Robles to dismiss a quiet title lawsuit filed by a similar group of basin property owners against the county, Paso Robles and other water providers in the basin. This means the case will continue.

Urgency ordinance lawsuit

In the lawsuit regarding the urgency ordinance, a hearing is set for Monday at 9 a.m. at which Tangeman will issue his final ruling. If he upholds his initial ruling, the ordinance could stay in effect until it expires at the end of August 2015.

County Counsel Rita Neal said she is pleased with Tangeman’s ruling even though it is tentative.

“We think it is unlikely that the judge will change the tentative ruling, and we also think the court was correct in its ruling,” she said.

The case was brought by a group of landowners in the basin called the Paso Robles Water Integrity Network. They filed a writ of mandate to have the ordinance revoked.They argued that the ordinance violates the law in several ways — that it conflicts with the principles of water law, that a declaration of overdraft in the basin was required before the ordinance could be enacted and that the ordinance is overbroad.

Tangeman disagreed, saying that the ordinance is legal because it is within the county’s broad authority to maintain a well-ordered and healthy community.“As a quasi-legislative act that implies economic interests, the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose: maintaining available water for all users of the basin,” he wrote in his ruling.

Although the ordinance will expire in nine months, the landowner group could still appeal the ruling to the appellate court in Ventura. Paso Robles winemaker Cindy Steinbeck, a lead plaintiff in both lawsuits, said it is too early to say if she will appeal.

“It is not appropriate for me to comment as the judge hasn’t ruled on the writ of mandate, only issued a tentative order,” she said. “Monday we will be before the court.”County supervisors passed the emergency ordinance in August 2013 in an attempt to limit additional pumping from the basin. At hearings, supervisors determined the basin is in crisis due to falling aquifer levels and reports of hundreds of wells going dry or having to have their pumps lowered to keep the water flowing.

Quiet title lawsuit

The quiet title case was brought by some 200 basin property owners, called Protect Our Water Rights, in an attempt to have their right to continue pumping from the basin declared equal or superior to the rights of the county and other governmental entities that also pump from the basin.

The suit was brought as a result of the emergency ordinance. The plaintiffs argue that the ordinance limits their ability to pump from the basin and limits their property rights. The goal of the suit is to eventually bring the basin into adjudication, which means a court would take over determining water rights and management of the basin.The case was transferred to San Jose because Santa Clara County has a court that specializes in handling complex water rights cases. On Friday, Judge Peter Kirwan ruled that the case has merit to continue.

“Today’s ruling by Judge Kirwan is a great victory for protecting our water rights,” Steinbeck said. “POWR is committed to protecting our priority right and by doing so protecting our basin through adjudication.”

The City of Paso Robles filed a demurrer in an attempt to have the case thrown out. Its main argument was that the plaintiffs sued only five local governments and water purveyors but did not sue any of their neighboring property owners, who also pump from the basin.

“A small number of landowners decided to sue a select number of other users in the basin,” said Jim App, Paso Robles city manager. “We find that odd.”Kirwan ruled that the case can continue because quiet title is an appropriate way to protect water rights from other users who seek to pump or appropriate more water even if it is against a limited number of other groundwater users.

“Courts have recognized the right of overlying landowners to seek quiet title in order to protect against further prescriptive claims by appropriators,” Kirwan wrote in his ruling.

The next hearing in the case is set for Feb. 6 in San Jose. At that hearing, Kirwan will hear more arguments about which groundwater users should be included in the case and refine the exact boundaries of the basin, Neal said.

This story was originally published December 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM with the headline "Rulings handed down in two lawsuits affecting Paso Robles groundwater basin."