Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 et al.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a comprehensive groundwater adjudication judgment concerning the Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin. The court upheld allocations prioritizing overlying landowners, the treatment of mutual water companies, and the adoption of a physical solution appointing Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency as watermaster. The court rejected numerous challenges concerning water-right priorities, equitable treatment of nonsettling parties, basin assessments, and implementation of the judgment.

Holdings

1. The superior court properly allocated groundwater directly to the overlying landowners because substantial evidence established that the landowners retained their overlying rights and the mutual water companies acted as agents for delivery rather than owners of those rights.
2. The mutual water companies were not entitled to separate appropriative allocations because they failed to prove that surplus groundwater existed or that the requested water could be extracted without injury to senior overlying rights.
3. The court properly subordinated, but did not extinguish, Solano Verde's dormant overlying rights because Solano Verde had not used basin groundwater for approximately 20 years, had no demonstrated intent to resume pumping, and did not establish a current reasonable and beneficial need.
4. Solano Verde was not entitled to an imported-return-flow allocation because it did not timely raise the claim, did not import the water into the basin, and failed to prove recharge, intent to recapture, or ability to use the return flows.
5. The superior court acted within its equitable authority in adopting the comprehensive physical solution, using a dynamic operating-yield allocation structure, managing the basin as a single basin, and applying the judgment to objecting parties.
6. The basin assessments authorized by the judgment did not violate Proposition 218 because they were imposed by the watermaster as an agent of the court, not by a local government, and were reasonably related to basin-management benefits and costs.
7. CEQA did not apply to the watermaster's implementation of the court-ordered physical solution because the watermaster acted under judicial authority and was not carrying out a discretionary project proposed or approved by a public agency.
8. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the settlement materials, mediation-related evidence, or lay testimony concerning the allocation schedule, and appellants failed to show prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court properly allocated groundwater directly to landowners and shareholders rather than to mutual water companies.
2. Whether mutual water companies were entitled to separate appropriative allocations.
3. Whether the court properly subordinated Solano Verde's dormant overlying rights and rejected its claimed imported return flows.
4. Whether the judgment complied with statutory water-right priorities, the California Constitution's reasonable-use requirement, and the criteria for stipulated judgments in comprehensive groundwater adjudications.
5. Whether the physical solution, operating-yield allocation structure, single-basin management plan, farming allocations, and inclusion of objecting parties were proper.
6. Whether basin assessments imposed under the judgment violated Proposition 218.
7. Whether the watermaster's implementation of the judgment was subject to CEQA.
8. Whether the superior court abused its discretion in admitting mediation-related evidence and lay testimony.

Disposition

affirmed