In re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No CV Tentative Decision re Trial Phase V

Transcription

1

2 way of a physical solution, and whether the court should enter a single judgment or a separate judgment on the stipulation of the settling parties. The LOG/Wineman parties voluntarily moved to dismiss all causes of action other than their actions to Quiet Title to their water rights appurtenant to their various properties. The only evidence presented by them on their specific claims established their current title to the real property. There was no evidence presented as to the reasonable and beneficial use of the water underlying their land. They did present evidence that generally in the basin as a whole there was no decline in the total quantity of pumping from the aquifer during the many drought years in which pumping greatly exceeded recharge of the aquifer. n the Phase V trial, the court concluded that the public water producers had pumped water in specified amounts during periods of over draft and that such pumping was open, notorious and hostile to the rights of overlying landowners within the valley. The court quantified the combined prescriptive rights so found as 000 acre feet a year. The prescriptive rights must be measured against whatever quantified rights overlying owners have. Without evidence to measure the overlying owner s rights, the court cannot determine the effect the prescriptive rights have on overlying owner s rights. Thus, while the evidence presented is sufficient to establish legal title, there was no evidence that would permit the court to quiet title to the overlying water rights in light of the claim of prescription. Quiet title may be an appropriate remedy to establish water rights in an appropriate case. But here because not all parties producing water from the Santa Maria Valley are joined and where there are many other overlying land owner parties who produce water from this single basin aquifer who were but are no longer parties to the proceedings, that remedy is unavailable because the court cannot ascertain the extent of the rights claimed by the landowners. The court will address the basic issues, however, in the declaratory relief actions brought by the public water producers. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

3 The City of Santa Maria has established a prescriptive right to 0 acre feet a year and the Golden State Water Company has established a prescriptive right to 100 acre feet a year. Those rights are usufructuary and are also correlative to the same extent that an overlying owner s rights are correlative. Those public water producers are entitled to those specific quantities of water in the aquifer the same as any overlying landowner so long as there is a surplus of water in the aquifer, and they also have a priority over other appropriators in those circumstances just as an overlying owner has a priority when there is no surplus. The Public Water Producers ask the court to allocate the prescriptive rights obtained by the City of Santa Maria and the Golden State Water Company against only the LOG and Wineman parties. But the evidence establishes that the water appropriated by the public water producers was not water to which only the LOG and the Wineman Group parties have rights. All rights to water within a single basin aquifer being correlative, all rights within the basin may be affected by the acquisition of prescriptive rights by a party who appropriates. The evidence establishes that overall pumping by all parties (overlying owners as well as appropriators) continued without reduction during the periods of severe drought, resulting in serious depletion of water in the aquifer. Prescriptive rights obtained during that period therefore must be a charge against the aquifer as a whole, and all overlying owners to one extent or the other; and not just against a single landowner. The LOG/Wineman Group parties ask the court to find that they have exercised self help and that the public water producers have therefore not acquired any prescriptive rights. The doctrine of self-help is a concept that has been used by the courts to describe the relationship between overlying land owners and appropriators in circumstances where an appropriator has obtained prescriptive rights at the same time that an overlying owner has continued to pump but has not sought legal action to enjoin the appropriator. Whether it is appropriately called self help or not, there is a legal consequence to the continuous pumping from the aquifer during times of overdraft by both the appropriator and the overlying land owner. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

4 The party asserting prescription must prove the elements of prescription. The land owner mitigates the effect of prescription by so called self help. Perhaps traditional common law principles best describe it. See analogously Smith v. New Hampshire (10) Cal. App., where a party obtained a prescriptive easement in a ditch to carry water across the land of another but the fee owner also used the easement during the period of prescription to transport water. As a consequence, the prescriptive easement was non-exclusive. The analogy is far from perfect but is somewhat useful as authority for the doctrine of self help mitigates but does not prevent the adverse party from obtaining prescriptive rights. n the ground water context, even though the overlying owner continues to pump concurrently with the appropriator, because there is no surplus in times of overdraft, the appropriator is taking water to which the overlying owner has a prior right. t would seem that using the Smith v. New Hampshire reasoning, the land owner cannot prevent prescription but may mitigate the loss of rights by continuing to pump. The only overlying landowner parties adverse to the public water producers in the fourth and fifth phases of the trial are the LOG and Wineman Group parties and therefore the court may not make any orders or render any judgments reducing the rights of the other overlying land owners in the basin at this time. And without a quantification of the water rights of the LOG and Wineman Group parties, as well as the other overlying owners rights, the court at this time cannot determine the effect that prescription has on any landowner party. n the event of water shortages in the ground water basin, it would be necessary for the court to quantify all usufructuary rights and equitably allocate pumping rights of each right holder over whom the court has jurisdiction. Under those circumstances a court would be required to recognize and take into consideration land owners rights, prescriptive rights, imported water rights, and the right to return flows. The stipulating parties have agreed and requested that the court retain equitable jurisdiction over the parties in this matter. There is reasonable certainty that the valley will suffer water shortages in the future and that the court will be required to act in the future to preserve the rights of the various parties to this litigation in the event that Twitchell is not n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

5 renovated and restored and a possibility that such shortages may occur even if Twitchell capacity is restored. Future water shortages may require the court to evaluate pumping rights and to quantify the reasonable and beneficial uses of water which each party seeks to pump. The majority of the property owners who produce water in the valley have entered into a stipulation to settle their interests in the case, and have stipulated with the public water producers regarding both the claimed prescriptive rights as well as a purported physical solution to preserve the hydrologic health of the valley aquifer. The stipulation, inter alia, provides for monitoring of water use. That data will be available to the court in the event of a severe water shortage affecting the entire valley if the court is called upon to act. The LOG and Wineman Group parties are not parties to the stipulation and have not agreed to participate in water monitoring. The LOG and Wineman Group parties must monitor their water production, maintain records thereof, and make the data available to the court and its designee in view of the substantial likelihood of future water shortage so that the court can ascertain the reasonable and beneficial use of water rights of all parties and the effect of prescription on all overlying land owner water producers. The stipulating parties have also agreed as between themselves to equitably divide the water produced by Twitchell that results in recharge to the aquifer. The recharge to the valley from Twitchell to which the stipulating parties have agreed is,000 acre feet a year. The stipulating parties have agreed to allocate 0 percent of that recharge to the public water producers and 0 percent to the other parties to the stipulation. The parties can so agree and be bound to the agreement in the future. Those who are not parties to the agreement, such as the LOG and Wineman Group parties, however, are not bound by the agreement. Accordingly, while, in the event of a drought and consequent water shortages, the stipulating parties will have a basis for the court being asked to enforce the settlement among themselves if need be, that in and of itself cannot affect the rights to ground water of non-stipulating parties. The correlative rights of non-stipulating parties to ground water will remain unaffected by the n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

6 stipulation subject only to the court s findings of the legal consequence of the prescriptive rights and the court s equitable jurisdiction. The LOG and Wineman Group parties contend that the Conservation District cannot enter into such a contract (the stipulation) because it lacks authority to shift water from all users in the basin to a select few who pay for it. They also argue that even if it has the authority to do so, it would have to obtain an environmental impact report before doing so. The agreement allocates water rights only among those parties who are party to the agreement. The objecting, non-stipulating parties are not parties to the agreement and are unaffected by the agreement. The LOG/Wineman Group parties object to the agreement by the conservation district on the grounds that no environmental impact report has been prepared by the district. The court is not satisfied that the parties have adequately addressed the issue of an environmental impact and will require more briefing on that issue before the court rules upon the objection if the parties wish to make that an issue. The parties should also indicate whether it is the renovation and restoration of the reservoir or the division of the water between the stipulating parties that requires an environmental impact report. The court notes that the agreement does not deprive any party of water who is not party to the agreement, does not modify the operation of the reservoir and dam beyond what was originally provided for, and merely would restore its capacity to the original planned capacity. There does not appear to be an environmental impact that would on its face require a further environmental impact report and statement. Nevertheless, the parties may brief the issue if they choose. The conservation district does have the right to provide by contract for the maintenance and operation of the dam and the reservoir to carry out its contractual duties arising out of the contract between the U.S. Department of the nterior (Bureau of Reclamation) and the Santa Barbara County Water agency which have been delegated to the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District. The contract duties include the maintenance and operation of the dam and reservoir for flood control purposes, to enhance annual recharge of the aquifer, and to n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

7 benefit all users appurtenant to the ground water basin. The water conservation district has the power to enter into contracts to carry out those functions. The stipulation (contract) is designed to provide for restoration and maintenance of the storage capacity of the reservoir and thereby ensure an adequate water supply for the entire valley. That is a legitimate purpose and it benefits all parties here, even the objecting parties. The overwhelming majority of water producers in the valley have entered into the stipulation. The only parties who have not so agreed and are objecting are the LOG and Wineman Group parties. The court concludes that a physical solution is necessary and appropriate to provide for future exigencies and that the water management plan provided for in the stipulation is necessary and appropriate and will provide an efficacious solution. The public water producers request that the court approve the water management plan agreed to in the stipulation. The court intends to do that in its final judgment as to the stipulating parties but to exclude the allocation of the Twitchell production from the imposition of the plan on the objecting parties. t would be premature for the court to order an allocation of water produced by Twitchell as to parties who are not party to the stipulated agreement. Whatever quantity the public water producers have obtained by way of prescription must be charged against the valley as a whole. There has been no evidence presented that would permit the court to charge that amount of water as a charge against LOG and Wineman Group parties alone. They cannot be precluded from any share of the Twitchell production on that basis. The Santa Maria Valley water basin continues to be in jeopardy of overdraft in times of drought. Pumping has increased with increases in population. The Twitchell dam has ongoing and increasingly serious accumulation of silt in the reservoir. The build up of silt in the reservoir reduces the capacity of the reservoir to store water necessary to recharge the aquifer. The dam has to date lost substantial capacity to store water as a consequence of silt accumulation. ncreasing the capacity of the dam is a long range endeavor. f a lengthy period of drought occurs before the dam capacity has been restored, pumping at current levels from the aquifer will be reasonably certain to result in an overdraft. The agreement between the n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

8 stipulating parties offers some hope for the future of the basin but it is not a guaranty even under the best of circumstances. Even after the dam was completed, there was an overdraft in the basin for the years 1 to 1, in addition to extensive pre-twitchell periods of overdraft in the historic past. The valley has experienced extreme variations in precipitation and run off from the surrounding watershed, and drought years have historically been lengthy and especially severe. The evidence before the court is that similar patterns may be expected to recur in the future. Thus, this is a matter in equity and the court will therefore retain jurisdiction to carry out and enforce its judgment as necessary and to implement the stipulation and protect the interests of all parties, the stipulating parties, the LOG and Wineman Group parties, the Public Water Producers and the public generally. The court intends to enter a single judgment, incorporating the stipulated terms and imposing all but the allocation of Twitchell water into those terms as to all parties to this litigation. The allocation of Twitchell water and certain costs and duties shall be only as to those stipulating parties. The prescriptive rights of the public water producers shall be part of the judgment. All parties shall participate in and be bound by the Management Area Monitoring Program. The Court will enter judgment for the cross defendant public water producing parties on the Cross complaints by LOG and the Wineman Group parties for quiet title. The court will find title in the LOG and Wineman parties as part of the Declaratory Relief Action filed by the Public Water Producers but deny quiet title to water rights for the reasons stated above. The Northern Cities have a prior right to 00 acre feet per year and the non stipulating parties have no right thereto, or any return flows. Judgments may also be entered against all defaulting parties. n re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1--CV-01

9 objections and oral argument thereto after they are received. Q '~ated: November,W w e of the Superior Cow - 1. % P ' l 1 / i f m' a1 ; ', : ' sl :