NCSD Half Truth #13: “The court recognized that there were pumping depressions on the Nipomo Mesa”

NCSD often makes statements like:

"The court found pumping depressions on the Nipomo Mesa" or "The court recognized that there were pumping depressions on the Nipomo Mesa "

 

The court did not make such a finding.

The NCSD claim that the Judge made a finding, or “recognized” of pumping depressions is false.

In what document and where are you reading the NCSD claimed “finding”?

There is only one spot that I know of (and I was at the whole thing and have the complete record ) where the Judge uses the word “depression” and that is in the phase 3 trail decision.

See Groundwater_Litigation page for documents, Phase 3 Statement of decision

Phase 3 statement of decision page 13 line 14:

“If the Basin had been in overdraft for the last fifty-three years, one would expect to see evidence of the consequences of such overdraft of such a long duration. All the physical evidence is to the contrary. Monitoring wells reflect no serious depletion or lowering of water levels, other wells in the Valley are at normal levels, water quality remains good, and there is no evidence of subsidence. No evidence of seawater intrusion, land subsidence, or water quality deterioration that would be evidence of overdraft has been presented. Some wells in the Nipomo Mesa area do show lowering of water levels that may result from a pumping depression or other cause, and there may be some effects in that portion of the Basin that are not shared Basin-wide, but that is not sufficient in any event to demonstrate Basin-wide overdraft.

Furthermore, as noted above, Landowners also presented credible evidences of a water budget-confirmed independent change in storage calculation that showed a modest surplus in supply over a reasonable base period. The court therefore concludes based on all the evidence that the Basin is not, and has not been, in overdraft.”

Given the context of what NCSD was trying to prove that there was an overdraft (pumping exceeded the supply) on the Nipomo Mesa in such a way that there was pumping that was harmful to the basin and unlawful, and should be reduced.

The judge found that there was not a problem basin wide or on the Mesa, and clearly made no factual finding that there were pumping depressions because he used the word “may” and “or other cause”

There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a problem.

There is no court finding of which wells would be the “certain wells”

There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a pumping depressions.

There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a pumping and a need to reduce pumping.

There is no court finding of a supply number for the “Nipomo Mesa”.

There is no court finding of a maximum pumping number for the “Nipomo Mesa”.

There is no court finding of a date of “existing shortage”  for the “Nipomo Mesa”.

There is no court finding of a “Nipomo Mesa area”.

There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a future problem with seawater intrusion.

Also note that there is no mention of “depressions” in the appealed “final judgment” after the words “are hereby adjudged and decreed” that would “lock in” the phase the

There is no court finding that NCSD can not just move the wells they placed to close together, further apart.