Groundwater Litigation
Appeal, Judgment and Settlement
The California Appellate Courts, 6th Appellate District Cases H035056, H021401, H027639, H033544, H034362 for the appeal of the Santa Maria Groundwater Litigation caseare located on the website at: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=6
Wineman Appeal Brief, 03/19/10
Landowner Group Appeal Brief of Final Judgment, 09/14/10 6mb
Purveyor Joint Response to Appeal Brief of Final Judgment, 5/17/11 1mb
Pismo Response to Appeal Brief of Final Judgment, 5/18/11
Guadalupe Response to Appeal Brief of Final Judgment, 5/18/11
Winman Reply to Purveyor Joint Response, 08/04/11
Landowner Group Reply to Purveyor Joint Response, 10/06/11 7mb
Landowner Group Reply to Pismo Response, 10/06/11 1mb
Landowner Group Reply to Guadalupe Joint Response, 10/06/11 1mb
The Superior Courts, Santa Maria Groundwater Litigation Cases CV770214, CV784900, CV784921, CV784926, CV785509, CV785511, CV785515, CV785522, CV785936, CV786971, CV787150, CV787151, CV787152, CV790597, CV790599, CV790741, CV790803, 990738, 990739 are located on the website at: http://www.sccomplex.org/
Judgment posted 02/07/2008
Judgment 2mb
Exhibit 1: 8mb
June 30, 2005 Stipulation and the following exhibits thereto:
Exhibit 1A:
List identifying the Stipulating Parties and the parcels of land bound by the Stipulation
Exhibit 1B:
Phase I and II Orders, as modified, with attachments.
Exhibit 1C:
Map of the Basin and boundaries of the three Management Areas
Exhibit 1D: 2mb
Map identifying those lands as of January 1, 2005: 1) within the boundaries of a municipality or its sphere of influence. or within the process of inclusion in its sphere of influence; or 2) within the certificated service area of a publicly
regulated utility; and a list of selected parcels that are nearby these boundaries which are excluded from within these areas.
Exhibit 1E: 2mb
2002 Settlement Agreement between the Northern Cities and Northern Landowners.
Exhibit 1F: 2mb
The agreement among Santa Maria, Golden State and Guadalupe regarding Twitchell Project and the Twitchell Management Authority
Exhibit 1G:
The court's Order Concerning Electronic Service of Pleadings and Electronic Posting of Discovery Documents dated June 27, 2000.
Exhibit 1H:
The form of memorandum of agreement to be recorded
Exhibit 2:
List of Non-Stipulating LOG and Wineman Parties and recorded deed numbers of property tbey owned at the time of trial.
Exhibit 3:
List of Defaulting parties.
The orginal at the court website:
Document Title: "Judgment After Trial"
Author: Honorable Jack Komar
Filing Date: 01/25/2008
Submit Date: 02/07/2008
http://www.sccomplex.org/cases/noticelink.jsp?FormCaseId=VAE2661C98F&FormDocId=ZE16528D17E8
6/30/05 version that people signed:
Settlement 2mb
Exhibit A to C 1mb:
Exhibit A: Stipulating Parties and Parcels of Land
Bound by Terms of Stipulation,
Exhibit B:Phase I and II Orders (as modified) and Santa Maria Basin Map
Exhibit C: Map of the Basin and Boundaries of the Three Management Areas
Exhibit D 2mb:
Exhibit D: Maps Identifying Those Lands and List of selected parcels that are nearby the boundaries.
Exhibit E 2mb:
Exhibit E: 2002 Settlement Agreement between the Northern Cities and Northern Landowners.
Exhibit F 3mb:
Exhibit F: Agreement Among City of Santa Maria, Southern California Water Company and City of Guadalupe Regarding the Twitchell Project and the TMA.
Exhibit G to H 1mb:
Exhibit G: Court's Order Concerning Electronic Service of Pleadings
Exhibit H: Form of Memorandum of Agreement to be Recorded
Orginals at the court website (not text searchable)
Document Title: "Stipulation (June 30, 2005 Version)"
Author: Robert Saperstein for Hatch & Parent
Submit Date: 06/30/2005
http://www.sccomplex.org/cases/noticelink.jsp?FormCaseId=VAE2661C98F&FormDocId=G8CFC6FF9446
Golden State Water Company Cross-Complaint
Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District Complaint
How can NCSD win the litigation with everyone having a “subordinate” right and also have an “inferior” right?
What NCSD "won" :
“The District and other public water providers have limited control to manage the resource and have an inferior water right to many of the other users.” NCSD agenda C-5 May 11th 2011”
What NCSD asked for :
8/25/1999 Cross-Complaint page 6 paragraph 12:
NIPOMO asserts and contends that the right of any Cross defendant to continue to produce water from the BASIN and/or to increase its production of water from the BASIN is subordinate to the rights of NIPOMO to do so pursuant to NIPOMO's .prescriptive and/or appropriative water rights.
8/25/1999 Cross-Complaint page 6 paragraph 14:
NIPOMO desires a judicial determination and declaration as to the validity of its assertions and contentions set forth in paragraph 12 of this Cross-complaint, the amount of BASIN water to which NIPOMO and each of the Cross-defendants is entitled to produce from the BASIN and the priority and character of each party's respective rights.
NCSD Cross-Complaint 8/25/1999
Other Cases:
Mojave current litigation 06/15/11 (Litigation over who owns groundwater pumping rights based on the settlement)
Mojave Supreme Court ruling 08/21/00 (overturning trial courts attempt to apply the settlement to all parties, Litigating landowners have superior overlying rights)
Mojave Trial Court ruling 01/10/96 (a settlement, Settling parties all agree to cutbacks)
Wright vs. Goleta ruling 11/07/85 (Litigating landowners have superior overlying rights)
8/23/11 Mike Winn comments at Town hall presentation:
Quote from 8/23/11 presentation
| h:mm:ss | Notes on Comments made |
| 1:05:43 | Question: What can be done to get Conoco Philips and ag users to contribute? |
| 1:05:49 | Talk to our congress men? |
| 1:05:52 | Well you can certainly talk to your congress man. But the problem is the law. |
| 1:06:01 | We have one of the most antiquated water laws in America, Texas and united states (California ) only |
| 1:06:08 | have the law that water does not belong to all of us. It belongs to each individual underneath their property. When they pump it it's theirs and you can't tell them no. |
| 1:06:21 | This is so antiquated it came out of the gold rush in California there was a test case done and it started |
| 1:06:28 | back in the 1990 between Barstow and the water conservation district over Mojave and the question was: Look this law is so antiquated so out of date, surely this can't be are law. |
| 1:06:41 | and they one the first case and they lost the second case on appeal and they went to the California supreme court. |
| 1:06:49 | The California Supreme court ruled very simply: the old law is definitely still in effect. That's it. |
02/27/08 NCSD Markman update on litigation slides (pdf)
02/27/08 NCSD Audio Markman update on litigation mp3 format 9 mb
02/27/08 NCSD Audio Markman update on litigation mp3 format large size 63 mb
| h:mm:ss | Notes on Comments made |
| 0:00:00 | Markman |
| 0:00:29 | Nipomo Mesa NMMA map |
| 0:01:38 | C9 Exhibit of water levels |
| 0:02:02 | Court declined to make any determination of a Nipomo sub-basin |
| 0:02:32 | Ag Pumping had been spread out |
| 0:02:49 | NCSD and rural pumping in a confined area |
| 0:02:58 | NCSD pumping Started to create a problem |
| 0:03:08 | Third slide of "pumping" below sea level (not static water levels) |
| 0:03:46 | Exhibit C11 an other way to look at the problem |
| 0:04:47 | Local problem that got a separate management area |
| 0:05:10 | First page of Judgment (page 5) |
| 0:05:34 | Case Driven by Quite Title and Cross-Complaints |
| 0:06:11 | Page 6 |
| 0:06:31 | Log the loyal Opposition |
| 0:07:17 | Most important is paragraph 5 everyone shall monitor |
| 0:08:19 | No party has a pre-stipulation right to twitchell |
| 0:09:08 | Continuing Jurisdiction |
| 0:09:48 | Access to court with motion, advantage of this litigation |
| 0:10:30 | age 7 Allocation and Denial of rights |
| 0:10:44 | Prescriptive rights a massive over statement |
| 0:11:19 | prescriptive right is 100's of acre feet not thousands |
| 0:12:00 | Return flow |
| 0:13:36 | Northern Cities |
| 0:14:04 | No evidence of production during prescription |
| 0:14:37 | Injunctions (page 8) |
| 0:15:39 | A difficult concept, All Real property, Novel injunction |
| 0:17:18 | In rem or In persome |
| 0:19:04 | Settlement is incorporated in the Judgment (Page 10) |
| 0:20:21 | Page 11 |
| 0:22:25 | All Water co-mingled |
| 0:23:03 | Storage space |
| 0:25:42 | Ground water monitoring |
| 0:26:30 | Don't let anyone tell you this judgment forces metering |
| 0:27:23 | Monitoring program by Late July |
| 0:29:15 | Physical Solution (page 13) |
| 0:30:49 | No other parties are to be charged for the supplemental water |
| 0:31:40 | What happens if NCSD does not get the Water |
| 0:32:20 | Anything else depends on getting the supplemental water |
| 0:34:38 | There's a lot of speculating, that's the reason for the monitoring |
| 0:34:43 | Impacts on Mesa Water Productions Rights |
| 0:35:14 | With out supplemental water nothing happens |
| 0:37:55 | That is the deal |
| 0:38:17 | Technical Group (Page 15) |
| 0:39:52 | Condition to get a sever water shortage condition that requires action |
| 0:40:57 | Comment on slide |
| 0:41:22 | 49,000 AF to Ocean, (Markman has no idea) |
| 0:42:56 | $500,000 per year/ 32,000 AF/Y = $15 |
| 0:43:26 | Markman clearly does not know that GSWC is outside the SMVWCD or the Twitchell place of use |
| 0:44:44 | Markman unclear on actual Twitchell cost for the TMA of $15/AF/y vs the old assessment |
| 0:46:12 | Questions |
| 0:50:40 | Mike Winn notes that the graphing by SAIC is miss leading because of the use of the same specific yield for all groundwater |
| 0:51:47 | Is 65% return flow static? unless someone shows its "wacky" |
| 0:57:27 | Markman long term view of purveyor pumping |
| 0:59:37 | Public Comment |
| 1:02:53 | Markman reply to public comment |